United States v. Brown
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 26013
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- Brown was convicted by jury of multiple wire fraud and related offenses and sentenced to 180 months.
- Brown argued the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying out-of-state counsel of choice due to indigence and local rule constraints.
- The district court protected Brown's rights by appointing standby counsel and allowing a no-cost proffer for out-of-state counsel, while ensuring efficiency of proceedings.
- Brown pressed for new counsel and disputed readiness, leading to a December 1, 2008 trial with standby counsel and the option to proceed pro se.
- On appeal Brown challenged sufficiency of evidence for intent to defraud and asserted sentencing errors, including enhancements for leadership and sophisticated means.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding no structural error, sufficient evidence of intent, proper application of enhancements, and proper consideration of sentencing factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred structurally by denying counsel of choice | Brown claims structural Sixth Amendment error due to indigent status. | Brown asserts Rule 83.5(l) prevents indigent denial of out-of-state counsel and challenges the rule as applied. | No structural error; right protected and properly balanced with court's management. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for intent to defraud | Brown argues lack of proof of intent to defraud, citing pre-New York meeting events. | Brown contends no intent to defraud before the Citigroup meeting undermines conviction. | Evidence showed a premeditated scheme and intent to defraud; circumstantial proof sufficient. |
| Whether the organizer level enhancement was proper | There were many participants supporting the organizer role; enhancement warranted. | Insufficient evidence that four participants bore criminal responsibility. | Upheld; the activity was extensive and the enhancement applied. |
| Whether the sophisticated means enhancement was proper | Scheme involved complex financial structuring and concealment. | Argues the conduct was not especially complex or intricate. | Upheld; complex, multi-victim scheme supported the enhancement. |
| Procedural sufficiency of § 3553(a) explanation and variance/departure | District court adequately discussed § 3553(a) factors; no need for mechanical recitation. | Contest expresses error for lack of explicit reasoning or downward variance. | District court properly considered factors; no reversible error and sentence presumptively reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel protection)
- United States v. Cordy, 560 F.3d 808 (8th Cir. 2009) (Counsel rights and procedural protections)
- United States v. Lewis, 759 F.2d 1316 (8th Cir.) (preference for counsel of choice where feasible)
- United States v. D'Amato, 39 F.3d 1249 (2d Cir. 1994) (inference of fraudulent intent from scheme)
- United States v. Lazarski, 560 F.3d 731 (8th Cir. 2009) (we do not require mechanical recitation of § 3553(a) factors)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (presumptive reasonableness of within-range sentence)
- United States v. Anderson, 349 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2003) (sophisticated means enhancement standard)
- United States v. Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010) (sophisticated means in complex fraud cases)
- United States v. Cosey, 602 F.3d 943 (8th Cir. 2010) (organization and extent of criminal activity for enhancements)