United States v. Bruce Jones, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22869

Background

Bruce Jones, a former family counselor with a prior 1985 felony drug conviction, was indicted on three counts of possessing firearms/ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and one count of health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347. Juries convicted on all counts.
FBI discovered Jones’s extensive gun collection and ammunition while investigating alleged fraudulent health-care billing; items were recovered from multiple locations including a Montana cabin.
The government obtained an ex parte pretrial restraining order on six life‑insurance policies listed in the indictment as forfeitable/substitute assets; Jones did not object below.
Jones sought substitute counsel shortly before his fraud trial, had a contentious relationship with appointed counsel (Inman), and requested new counsel multiple times; the district court denied substitution after hearings.
During the fraud trial the court conducted repeated colloquies regarding Jones’s right to testify; after three inquiries Jones expressly waived that right.
At sentencing the court applied U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) using Jones’s 1985 conviction (within the 15‑year lookback based on continuous possession/relevant‑conduct findings) to raise the base offense level; the court’s calculations produced a guideline range the court adopted and the sentences were imposed concurrently and affirmed on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jones)	Defendant's Argument (Gov’t)	Held
Pretrial restraint of life‑insurance policies	Restraint violated Sixth Amendment right to hire counsel of choice and Fifth Amendment due process; Luis supports burden on gov’t to show assets are tainted	Restraining order permissible; Jones forfeited challenge by not objecting and gov’t could treat policies as tainted/substitute under indictment	No plain error: Jones forfeited the issue by failing to seek a Moya‑Gomez hearing; record does not show policies were untainted or that Jones needed them to retain counsel
Request for substitute counsel during fraud trial	Counsel conflict and communication breakdown warranted replacement	District court conducted adequate inquiries; request untimely and Jones had pattern of delay/obstruction	No abuse of discretion in denying substitution; inquiry adequate and district court reasonably found delay/manipulation concerns
Right to testify at fraud trial	Inman prevented Jones from testifying; waiver was not knowing/unequivocal	Court repeatedly colloquied Jones; third colloquy produced an unequivocal waiver	Waiver was knowing and voluntary after three colloquies; no denial of right to testify
Sentencing guideline enhancement using 1985 conviction	1985 conviction fell outside 15‑year lookback and should not enhance base level	Evidence showed continuous possession from at least 1996 (and relevant conduct), bringing offense within 15‑year lookback and satisfying §1B1.3 relevant‑conduct rules	Affirmed: district court’s findings of continuous possession and relevant conduct were not clearly erroneous; 1985 conviction properly counted for enhancement

Key Cases Cited

Caplin & Drysdale v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989) (post‑conviction forfeiture did not violate Sixth Amendment under statute creating vesting)
United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989) (pretrial restraint of tainted assets did not violate Sixth Amendment)
United States v. Moya‑Gomez, 860 F.2d 706 (7th Cir. 1988) (post‑restraint adversary hearing required when restraint actually impinges on counsel‑of‑choice right)
United States v. Phillips, 434 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2006) (procedural posture considerations for pre‑deprivation hearings)
United States v. Bjorkman, 270 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2001) (standards for reviewing denial of substitute counsel)
Ward v. Sternes, 334 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2003) (waiver to testify must be clear; ambiguous answers insufficient)
United States v. Ortiz, 431 F.3d 1035 (7th Cir. 2005) (definition of "same course of conduct" for relevant conduct analysis)