United States v. Alpha Rashidi Mshihiri
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4625
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Mshihiri founded GWP Mortgage, served as president/CEO, and later operated through Pristine, Pristine Finance, KIG, and VANY in a mortgage fraud scheme.
- Indictment alleges a June 2006–April 2009 conspiracy to defraud lenders via straw buyers, inflated prices, misrepresented income/assets, and kickbacks, involving four properties (Penthouse, Inglewood Duplex, 33rd Street Property, Broadmoor Residence).
- Penthouse purchase involved inflated price, down payment funds sourced by associates, and post-closing kickbacks; property later foreclosed.
- Inglewood Duplex and 33rd Street Property transactions used straw buyers with false invoices and forged documents; proceeds funded further fraudulent purchases and down payments via KIG/VANY accounts.
- Rashid was used as a straw buyer for the Broadmoor Residence; Rashid’s loan relied on misrepresented income and assets; down payment funded through Mshihiri-associated entities.
- HUD and other witnesses connected ten additional properties to the conspiracy; loss calculations at sentencing totaled $1,971,091.91, leading to enhancements and a 168–210 month guideline range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of evidence and custodial interrogation | Warrant affidavit insufficiency and Miranda-custody concerns on Sept. 16 interview. | Probable cause supported; interview not custodial; statements voluntary. | Probable cause supported; interview not custodial; statements voluntary. |
| Conspiracy—single hub-and-spoke versus multiple conspiracies | Single conspiracy proven by common objectives across properties. | Separate schemes for each property; no single conspiracy. | Evidence supports a single conspiracy. |
| Admission of Trice’s identifications (pretrial and in-court) | Pretrial identification evidence is admissible; in-court identification should stand. | Pretrial procedures were suggestive; risk of misidentification. | Waiver of pretrial issue; in-court identification admissible; no substantial misidentification. |
| Calculation of loss and relevant conduct for sentencing | Include ten additional properties; loss properly calculated as over $1 million. | Limit to original lenders; discounts for market factors; challenge hearsay. | Loss affirmed at $1,971,091.91; relevant conduct including additional properties; no error in calculation. |
| Obstruction of justice enhancement | Perjury at suppression hearing and trial justifies enhancement. | No perjury or improper obstruction proven. | Obstruction enhancement applied; perjury established. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lucca, 377 F.3d 927 (8th Cir. 2004) (probable cause review with informant reliability and basis balancing)
- United States v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances for informant-based warrants)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (Supreme Court 2011) (custody determination factors for Miranda applicability)
- United States v. LeBrun, 363 F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 2004) (custody determination; credibility review de novo for legal conclusions)
- United States v. Morales, 113 F.3d 116 (8th Cir. 1997) (single conspiracy standard; evidence viewed in light of verdict)
- United States v. Johnson, 719 F.3d 660 (8th Cir. 2013) (single-conspiracy analysis factors and standard of review)
- United States v. Engelmann, 720 F.3d 1005 (8th Cir. 2013) (actual loss calculation and sentencing conduct)
- United States v. Quevedo, 654 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2011) (loss calculation and relevant conduct includes related offenses)
- United States v. Shackelford, 462 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (hearsay admissibility in sentencing if reliable)
- United States v. Shackelford, 462 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (hearsay admissible in sentencing if indicia of reliability)
- Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (Supreme Court 1977) (criteria for evaluating eyewitness identification reliability)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court 2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be proved to jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (Supreme Court 2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimums must be submitted to jury)
- United States v. Williams, 340 F.3d 563 (8th Cir. 2003) (identification evidence admissibility framework)