United States v. Barrington
648 F.3d 1178
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Barrington, Jacquette, and Secrease conspired to alter FAMU grades using keyloggers to access the grading system.
- Keyloggers captured registrar usernames/passwords; changes in grades and residency status reduced tuition revenue and increased in-state tuition overall.
- Sister Mia’s grades and other students’ grades were changed; ultimately over 650 unauthorized changes affected at least 90 students.
- Jacquette pleaded guilty; Secrease also pleaded guilty; Barrington contested the charges at trial.
- Juries convicted Barrington on conspiracy to commit wire fraud using a protected computer, access without authorization to defraud, and three counts of aggravated identity theft; co-defendants received 22 months guidance and supervised release.
- Barrington challenged 404(b) evidence, cross-examination limits, and the sufficiency of identity-theft proof; he also challenged the conspiracy count and sentencing calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 404(b) extrinsic acts | Barrington objected; 404(b) evidence improper to show intent. | Barrington contends undue prejudice and misuse of prior acts. | Admissible; probative of intent with minimal prejudice; district court not abuse. |
| Cross-examination of Jacquette on pending burglary charge | Barrington claims motive/bias evidence should be admitted. | Barrington argues efficient impeachment of key witness via pending charge. | Court did not abuse discretion; cross-examination limited; no reversal. |
| Count One duplicity/duplicitous conspiracy | Count One alleged two objects; risk of duplicity and improper election. | Indictment flawed; jury should be instructed on duplicity and §1349 | Waiver and plain-error review; no plain error; single conspiracy with two objects upheld. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated identity theft | Passwords/usernames qualify as means of identification; used in relation to fraud. | Passwords were university data not personal means of identification. | Sufficient evidence; passwords coupled with university employees identified individuals; no plain error. |
| Sentencing calculations and enhancements | Base offense, loss, and enhancements were correct; no error. | Challenged base level, self-incrimination, loss, sophisticated means, leadership, device-making equipment. | Sentence reasonable; no reversible procedural errors; comprehensive §3553(a) consideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (Rule 404(b) abuse of discretion standard; admissibility central to issues)
- United States v. West, 898 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir. 1990) (Rule 404(b) relevance and prejudice balancing)
- United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (intent and mere presence as probative factors)
- United States v. Duran, 596 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (extrinsic acts evidence; admissibility to prove intent)
- United States v. Barakat, 130 F.3d 1448 (11th Cir. 1997) (sophisticated means; review of factual findings for clear error)