United States v. Bryant Allen Thompson
699 F. App'x 876
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants Quincy Walton and Bryant Thompson were convicted in a fraud scheme involving filing fraudulent tax returns and cashing Treasury refund checks using inmate identities.
- Walton convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A); Thompson convicted of conspiracy, multiple counts of wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
- Evidence included linked IP addresses, use of deceased/inmate identities with similar Prattville, AL addresses, testimony Walton received inmate identities from Thompson, and Walton cashing fraudulent checks.
- Walton argued the verdicts were inconsistent and that his 84-month sentence was unreasonable and based on an overstated intended loss ($400,000–$1,000,000).
- Thompson argued his 120-month sentence was unreasonable due to an alleged unwarranted disparity with codefendant Corey Thompson, who received 30 months after cooperating.
- The district court imposed within-Guidelines sentences; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed both convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy (Walton) | Government: evidence of agreement, common design, IP links, admissions support conviction | Walton: verdicts inconsistent so conviction cannot stand | Conviction affirmed; circumstantial evidence supported conspiracy and act in furtherance |
| Aggravated identity theft (Walton) | Government: Walton used name/forged signature (cashed check in deceased inmate's name) | Walton: inconsistent jury verdict undermines conviction | Conviction affirmed; sufficient evidence of using another's identification |
| Sentence reasonableness re: loss amount (Walton) | Government: intended loss supported by IRS agent testimony and IP-linked returns | Walton: district court erred in finding $400k–$1M intended loss | Sentence affirmed; district court did not clearly err and applied §3553(a) factors |
| Sentencing disparity (Thompson) | Thompson: 120 months is unreasonable compared to cooperating codefendant's 30 months | Government: Corey cooperated and accepted responsibility; not similarly situated | Affirmed; no unwarranted disparity because defendants not similarly situated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hough, 803 F.3d 1181 (11th Cir. 2015) (circumstantial evidence can establish conspiracy to impede the IRS)
- United States v. Schwartz, 541 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2008) (agreement to conspire may be inferred from relationship and concert of action)
- United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2015) (use of name and forged signature qualifies as a means of identification under §1028A)
- United States v. Mitchell, 146 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1998) (guilty verdict supported by sufficient evidence stands despite inconsistent verdict on another count)
- United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179 (11th Cir. 2008) (defendant bears burden to show sentence unreasonable under §3553(a))
- United States v. Rothenberg, 610 F.3d 621 (11th Cir. 2010) (appellate review of sentencing factual findings for clear error)
- Watts v. United States, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (sentencing court may consider conduct underlying acquitted charges if proved by preponderance)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentences)
- United States v. Williams, 526 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2008) (disparity concerns not implicated where codefendants not similarly situated)
- United States v. Regueiro, 240 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2001) (differences in codefendant sentences generally not grounds for relief)
- United States v. Langston, 590 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2009) (no unwarranted disparity when cooperating defendant who pleads guilty receives lesser sentence than trial defendant)
- United States v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 128 (11th Cir. 2005) (standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)