United States v. Angelique Bankston, 820 F.3d 215

Bankston was charged in a 23-count indictment with wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and a false statements offense related to three schemes, including the Citizens Bank scheme, between 2011 and 2012.
Count 23 charged making false statements to a judge under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, based on a letter Bankston wrote accusing agents of planting evidence.
Bankston waived counsel and proceeded pro se after a Faretta-style inquiry; she was still represented at sentencing proceedings for certain issues.
At trial, the jury found Bankston guilty on all counts; the district court imposed a combined sentence of 168 months (including consecutive two-year terms for aggravated identity theft).
On appeal Bankston challenged the Faretta inquiry, count 23’s validity, trial errors related to count 23, sufficiency of evidence on counts 16 and 18, and various sentencing errors; the panel vacated count 23, affirmed other counts, and remanded for resentencing.
The court held that count 23 violated § 1001(b)’s judicial function exemption on its face, vacating that count, and remanded for resentencing on the remaining counts with guidance on loss calculations and CHC departure rationale.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Bankston’s Faretta inquiry adequate?	Bankston	Bankston	Faretta inquiry adequate; no plain error.
Did count 23 state an offense under § 1001(b)?	Bankston	Bankston	Indictment failed to state an offense; count 23 vacated.
Were there due process errors tied to count 23 such as prosecutorial conduct or bias?	Bankston	Bankston	Prosecutorial misconduct and bias claims failed; no reversal of other counts.
Was there sufficiency of the evidence for counts 16 and 18 (wire and mail fraud)?	Bankston	Bankston	Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed on counts 16 and 18.
Were sentencing errors requiring resentencing on non-aggravated identity theft counts?	Bankston	Bankston	Remanded for resentencing due to incorrect base offense level and unaddressed CHC departure and loss disputes.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (right to self-representation requires knowing and intelligent waiver)
McDowell v. United States, 814 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1987) (model inquiry for Faretta waiver and substantial compliance standard)
McBride, 362 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 2004) (substantial compliance with model inquiry required)
Gatewood, 173 F.3d 983 (6th Cir. 1999) (indictment may fail to state an offense even with liberal construction)
Hubbard, 16 F.3d 694 (6th Cir. 1994) (judicial function exception considerations for § 1001(b))