United States v. Burks
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 10814
10th Cir.2012Background
- Burks provided key codes to an auto-theft ring; codes used to make working keys for targeted vehicles.
- Escalade stolen in Nevada, later recovered as a stripped frame and auctioned; reassembled, it was identified in Utah.
- Burks was charged with aiding and abetting interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle (2312) and possession/storage of a stolen vehicle (2313) under the Dyer Act.
- Burks confessed to selling codes to the Elliots, stopped selling codes, and helped authorities infiltrate the ring; he claimed withdrawal from the scheme.
- District court refused Burks’ withdrawal defense; jury could infer knowledge of theft by associates; restitution under MVRA awarded $50,977 to victims; Burks appealed consolidated appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal as defense to aiding and abetting | Burks提出 withdrawal defense | Burks contends withdrawal should negate liability | Burks failed to show reversible error; district court proper on burden and instruction. |
| Instruction allowing inference of theft knowledge by third party | Prosecution relied on Martinez’s possession as inferential proof | Burks challenges inference as to non-principal | Inference appropriate; evidence supports knowing theft and interstate transport. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice liability | Evidence shows Burks aided theft by providing key codes | Challenge to whether Burks’ conduct was enough to prove association and intent | Evidence sufficient to convict under §2312 and §2313. |
| MVRA restitution calculation | Restitution must cover full loss to identifiable victims | Offsets for residual value should reduce loss | Restitution proper; no deduction for speculative residual value; $50,977 awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957) (Dyer Act scope and purpose to close loopholes in interstate theft)
- United States v. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d 786 (10th Cir. 1997) (accomplice liability can be proven by circumstantial evidence and slight participation)
- United States v. Randall, 661 F.3d 1291 (10th Cir. 2011) (withdrawal as defense in conspiracy context; burden on defendant)
- United States v. Gwathney, 465 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2006) (review of jury instructions de novo; convey governing law)
- United States v. Whitney, 229 F.3d 1296 (10th Cir. 2000) (accomplice liability—encouragement can suffice for liability)
- Rogers v. United States, 416 F.2d 926 (10th Cir. 1969) (possession basis for inference in Dyer Act context)
- United States v. Smith, 461 F.2d 246 (10th Cir. 1972) (knowledge of interstate movement not element; fraud scheme focus)
- United States v. Muzii, 676 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1982) (recovered property doctrine discussion in Dyer Act)
- United States v. Hayes, 739 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1984) (accomplice knowledge of movement not required under Dyer Act)