United States v. Dwayne Onque
665 F. App'x 189
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- From 2006–2008 a multi-tiered mortgage-fraud scheme (leaders, industry insiders, and "straw purchasers") executed 31 transactions that extracted roughly $15 million from lenders via inflated mortgages and wire transfers.
- Leaders (Tarsia, Henry, Ricks, Smith) recruited industry insiders (loan officers, title agents, notaries) to fabricate income/employment/asset documents and recruited straw purchasers who used their credit to obtain loans and were paid afterward.
- Defendants: Nancy Wolf‑Fels (loan officer), Mashon Onque (title agent/notary), and Dwayne Onque (straw purchaser). Indicted on conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349/§ 1343); Dwayne also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957).
- After a 14‑day jury trial the three were convicted on the wire‑fraud conspiracy count; Dwayne convicted on the money‑laundering conspiracy count. Sentences: Dwayne 63 months; Mashon 30 months; Wolf‑Fels 42 months (each followed by 3 years supervised release).
- On appeal the defendants challenged (inter alia) alleged variance (single vs. multiple conspiracies), sufficiency of evidence, admission of Rule 404(b) other‑acts, willful‑blindness jury instruction, summary exhibits, co‑conspirator statement instructions, prosecutorial remarks, and several Guideline sentencing determinations. The Third Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variance: single hub‑and‑spokes conspiracy charged vs. proof of separate conspiracies | Wolf‑Fels: indictment charged a single, large conspiracy; proof showed multiple smaller conspiracies so variance prejudiced her by admitting unrelated evidence | Government/Onques: evidence established a single, pyramidal conspiracy with overlapping participants and common purpose | No reversible variance; sufficient overlap, common goal, and continuity supported single conspiracy finding |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict (conspiracy knowledge/intent) | Defendants: lacked the knowledge/intent required; some were minor participants or merely buyers | Government: introduced testimony, false loan documents, payments to straw buyers, requests to falsify employment verification showing knowledge/willful blindness | Evidence sufficient; jury could infer knowing participation and willful blindness |
| Admission of Rule 404(b) other‑acts and related jury instructions (willful blindness; co‑conspirator statements; summary exhibits) | Mashon/Dwayne: 404(b) and summaries were prejudicial/mischaracterized; willful‑blindness instruction not supported; summary charts/404(b) exhibits were unfairly prejudicial | Government: other‑acts showed plan, absence of mistake, motive; willful blindness supported by failures to inquire and suspicious patterns; charts summarized voluminous evidence and were proper | District Court did not abuse discretion: 404(b) admissible (Huddleston factors satisfied); willful‑blindness instruction appropriate; summary exhibits admissible; co‑conspirator statement instruction proper |
| Sentencing: Guidelines enhancements and role adjustments (sophisticated means; minor role) | Dwayne: enhancement for sophisticated means and denial of minor/ minimal role unjustified; court failed to properly consider §3553(a) factors for downward variance | Government: Dwayne signed fraudulent forms, received funds, and induced employer to corroborate false employment; enhancement and role assessment supported by record | No clear error or abuse of discretion: enhancement applied properly; role assessed correctly; sentence (63 months, at bottom of range) was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539 (variance between alleged and proven conspiracies)
- Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (test for admissibility of other‑acts Rule 404(b) evidence)
- United States v. Greenidge, 495 F.3d 85 (finding a pyramidal/large conspiracy)
- United States v. Gibbs, 190 F.3d 188 (government need not prove knowledge of all conspiracy details)
- United States v. Claxton, 685 F.3d 300 (404(b) evidence probative to show absence of mistake)
- United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137 (standard of review for jury instructions)
- United States v. Hedaithy, 392 F.3d 580 (wire fraud requires specific intent)