United States v. Battles
745 F.3d 436
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- Battles, a former real-estate employee/contractor, obtained a $500,000 refinance loan from Saxon in 2007 after submitting bank statements and income figures that overstated her finances; loan proceeds were disbursed but much was diverted and the property later foreclosed.
- Indicted on three counts (false statement to a bank §1014; wire fraud §1343; money laundering §1957); convicted by jury on wire fraud and money laundering, mistrial on §1014; sentenced to 30 months imprisonment, 2 years supervised release, and $326,902.34 restitution to Saxon Securitization Trust.
- Post-trial, Battles moved for a new trial asserting Brady suppression (M&N receipts and an IRS interview report) and surprise about the victim’s identity in the PSR; district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- On appeal Battles raised seven claims: Brady suppression; improper 404(b) evidence (testimony about burning documents); insufficient evidence; ineffective assistance of counsel; denial of acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment; unlawful restitution order; cumulative error.
- The Tenth Circuit dismissed the Brady-centered portion of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction (no timely appeal from the district court’s post-judgment denial of the Rule 33 motion) and affirmed the convictions and sentence in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Battles' Argument | United States' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady suppression of M&N receipts and IRS interview report | Government suppressed favorable, material evidence that would have aided impeachment or calling witnesses | Forfeiture/plain-error; alternatively evidence not material | Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction over Brady claim because Battles failed to file a separate/timely appeal from the post-judgment denial of her Rule 33 motion |
| Admission of testimony implying document destruction (Rule 404(b)) | Testimony about seeing smoke/trash burning improperly introduced other-acts evidence to inflame jury | Evidence was limited; any 404(b) error was harmless | Reviewed for plain error; even if error, did not affect substantial rights—affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for wire fraud and money laundering | Evidence insufficient; conviction on wire fraud inconsistent with acquittal on bank-statement count | Ample circumstantial and documentary evidence showing false income statements, diverted proceeds, and that deposited check was loan proceeds | Convictions supported: wire fraud and §1957 money laundering affirmed |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to plea-bargain or move for mistrial) | Counsel failed to pursue plea deals and failed to seek mistrial after improper testimony | Claim is not properly raised on direct appeal; record undeveloped | Dismissed without prejudice to collateral attack (Massaro) |
| Denial of acceptance-of-responsibility reduction (U.S.S.G. §3E1.1) | Battles accepted responsibility (including Rule 11 interview); government vindictively refused plea | District court credited evidence that Battles denied fraudulent intent and contested facts at trial | No clear error; denial of §3E1.1 affirmed |
| Restitution to Saxon Securitization Trust 2007-3 | Victim at trial was Saxon Mortgage; sentencing victim identification (trust/Deutsche Bank) changed and violated due process/ confrontation | Assignment/securitization documents show trust/Deutsche Bank was successor/assignee; PSR gave notice and opportunity to contest | Restitution order legal: victim properly identified and net-loss calculation appropriate; no Fifth or Sixth Amendment violation |
| Cumulative error | Aggregation of errors warrants reversal | Only one possibly non-constitutional error identified; no prejudice | Cumulative-error claim fails (requires multiple non-reversible errors) |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56 (1982) (filing a notice of appeal divests the district court of control over matters encompassed by the appeal)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent jury verdicts alone do not warrant reversal)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective-assistance claims ordinarily raised in collateral proceedings)
- United States v. Harvey, 959 F.2d 1371 (7th Cir. 1992) (when a new-trial motion is denied while an appeal is pending, a separate timely notice of appeal is required to review the denial)
- United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)