United States v. Deskins
1:13-cr-00025
W.D. Va.Feb 20, 2014Background
- Defendants Crystal Lynn Deskins and Jody Deskins pleaded guilty to Count One (conspiracy to structure) and Counts Two through Eight (substantive structuring).
- They challenged their offense level under USSG 2S1.3(b) based on a pattern of more than $100,000 in a 12-month period and challenged the government’s forfeiture amount.
- The government seeks a forfeiture money judgment of $103,305 to target the Deskins’ remaining asset (their new home).
- In 2010 the Deskins received a $596,319.48 net settlement from a wrongful-death/welfare-related lawsuit, which they did not report to welfare agencies.
- They engaged in multiple cash withdrawals over eight months, some under $10,000 but in aggregate exceeding $100,000; dates in the Indictment were later found to be misdated, but conduct remained continuous.
- The court denied the objections, holding the safe harbor in USSG 2S1.3(b)(3) did not apply and the full $103,305 should be considered for structured-finance sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether withdrawals constitute structuring despite not occurring on the same day | Goverment: This is a structure; daily totals irrelevant. | Deskins: Misdated dates undermine the structuring claim. | Yes; structuring occurs even with days between withdrawals; daily sums are irrelevant. |
| Whether safe harbor 2S1.3(b)(3) applies to reduce offense level | Goverment contends safe harbor not applicable given pattern >$100k. | Deskins: safe harbor should apply if criteria met. | Not applicable; full amount inherent in ongoing pattern remains. |
| Whether forfeiture amount is excessive under the Eighth Amendment | Goverment seeks $103,305 as appropriate punishment. | Deskins: forfeiture would be excessive and more than necessary. | Not excessive; serial structuring warrants substantial but not punitive excess. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Peterson, 607 F.3d 975 (4th Cir. 2010) (role of structuring guidelines in sentencing interpretation)
- United States v. Abdi, 342 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2003) (burden on defendant to prove safe harbor eligibility)
- Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (forfeiture must be proportionate to gravity of offense)
- United States v. $134,750 U.S. Currency, 535 F. App’x 232 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished but applicable circuit precedent on forfeiture harm)
- United States v. $79,650.00 Seized from Bank of Am., 650 F.3d 381 (4th Cir. 2011) (statutory maximum guides proportionality for forfeiture)