United States v. Almeida, III
748 F.3d 41
1st Cir.2014Background
- Almeida was convicted by jury of possessing counterfeit U.S. obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 472 and sentenced to 51 months.
- The stop of a truck in Turner, Maine led to arrests of Almeida and John Martin for identity offenses.
- Drouin later discovered counterfeit bills, money in Almeida's wallet, and other evidence linking to counterfeiting.
- Oak Pond bills were found in a separate location with Almeida’s fingerprints and matching serials to pattern notes.
- Evidence collections included a Doritos bag containing money and a Canon printer cartridge; ink matched counterfeit production.
- Almeida challenged evidentiary rulings and argued insufficient evidence and sentencing issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the truck search valid without a warrant? | Almeida; he had privacy in the truck. | Almeida; no privacy interest in vehicle. | Almeida lacked a reasonable privacy expectation; warrantless search permissible. |
| Does the inevitable discovery doctrine justify seizing money from Almeida’s wallet? | Seizure violated exclusionary rules. | Jail policy would inevitably lead to discovery. | Inevitable-discovery exception applied; seizure upheld. |
| Is Oak Pond bills evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)? | Evidence is improper propensity evidence. | Evidence has special relevance showing knowledge/intent. | Admissible under Rule 404(b) with no undue prejudice. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent to sustain a § 472 conviction? | Pattern notes and serials show intent. | No direct proof of intent; challenges to sufficiency. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supports intent to defraud. |
| Were sentencing enhancements properly applied and is disparity with co-defendant justified? | Enhancements overstated; sentencing disparity unfair. | District court properly applied enhancements; justified disparity given circumstances. | Enhancements and disparity affirmed; sentence upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lochan, 674 F.2d 960 (1st Cir. 1982) (privacy in vehicle analysis factors applied to determine expectation of privacy)
- United States v. Sanchez, 943 F.2d 110 (1st Cir. 1991) (contextual factors determine reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle)
- United States v. Aguirre, 839 F.2d 854 (1st Cir. 1988) (framework for evaluating privacy expectations in vehicle searches)
- United States v. Almeida, 434 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2006) (inevitable discovery analysis and independent means)
- United States v. Appolon, 715 F.3d 362 (1st Cir. 2013) (two-part Rule 404(b) test for admissibility (special relevance, then Rule 403))
- United States v. Wallace, 461 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2006) (consciousness of guilt evidence within Rule 404(b))
- United States v. Rogers, 102 F.3d 641 (1st Cir. 1996) (supports admissibility of related conduct evidence)
- United States v. Mousli, 511 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2007) (sufficiency of evidence; inferring intent from circumstances)
- United States v. Walker, 665 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing sentencing enhancements and fact-finding)
- United States v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2000) (general rule on prejudicial impact versus probative value)
- United States v. Sanchez, 943 F.2d 110 (1st Cir. 1991) (see above)