United States v. Curtis
635 F.3d 704
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud in Houston; at least ten properties purchased with inflated loans, profits shared among conspirators.
- Curtis controlled three properties (2105 Crocker, 704 Welch via consulting; 4420 Austin via flip) to obtain inflated loan proceeds.
- Straw buyers with good credit financed purchases; some straw buyers used stolen/paired identities and fake histories.
- Appraisals overstated property values to facilitate loan approvals; Rankin and Reardon testified to inflated values.
- Loans were closed with occupancy and repayment misrepresentations by straw buyers; Curtis distributed proceeds to coconspirators.
- Jury convicted Curtis on one conspiracy charge, three wire-fraud counts, and two aggravated identity-theft counts; sentence 144 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of texts from Curtis’s phone | Prosecution of conspiracy supported by texts | Texts seized unlawfully; exclusionary rule applies | Text messages properly admitted under good-faith/Finley |
| Curtis's presence during peremptory challenges | Right to presence violated by absence during challenges | Present for pivotal portions; no violation | No error; presence requirement satisfied overall |
| Admission of Ly–Dong text messages | Texts show conspiracy activity and effort to conceal | Risk of prejudice outweighs probative value | Admissible; probative value outweighs prejudice under Rule 403 |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Evidence showed Curtis’s participation and profits | Insufficient to prove all elements | Evidence sufficient for conspiracy, wire-fraud, and identity-theft charges |
| § 3B1.1(a) organizer/leader enhancement | Curtis acted as organizer/leader | No clear leadership role | Enhancement proper; Curtis organized, recruited, and received bulk profits |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Finley, 477 F.3d 250 (5th Cir. 2007) (text messages search incident to arrest admissible)
- Florida v. Wells, 483 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1990) (inventory search limits not applicable to this scenario)
- United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1985) (presence during proceedings can be satisfied even if absent at some steps)
- United States v. Jackson, 825 F.2d 853 (5th Cir. 1987 (en banc)) (good-faith and presence considerations under Rule 43/6th Amendment)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1999) (material misrepresentation standard for wire fraud)