United States v. Frantz Pierre
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16851
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Frantz Pierre led multi-state schemes using stolen Social Security numbers to file fraudulent federal tax returns and collect refunds; schemes ran through Florida and Minnesota.
- Florida prosecution (earlier) convicted Pierre of conspiracy, access-device offenses, aggravated identity theft, and possession of unauthorized access devices; he received a 208-month sentence.
- Minnesota indictment charged Pierre with conspiracy to defraud the government and money laundering based on preparer businesses and bank accounts that filed hundreds of fraudulent returns; Pierre pleaded guilty in Minnesota.
- Before pleading, Pierre moved to suppress bank records obtained via grand-jury subpoenas and moved to dismiss Minnesota charges as barred by double jeopardy; motions denied and an interlocutory appeal affirmed that the conspiracies were distinct.
- At Minnesota sentencing the court applied guideline enhancements (vulnerable victim, sophisticated means, 10+ victims, intended loss > $5.2M, role adjustment), producing an advisory range of 188–235 months and a 210-month sentence (all but 36 months concurrent with Florida sentence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of suppression of bank records | Pierre argued grand-jury subpoenas violated Fourth Amendment and RFPA | Government argued Pierre lacked standing and RFPA does not authorize suppression; guilty plea waived suppression claims | Guilty plea waived suppression claims; no reversible error affirmed |
| Double jeopardy dismissal of Minnesota indictment | Pierre contended Minnesota prosecution duplicated Florida conspiracy, so second prosecution barred | Government and prior Eighth Circuit panel found the indictments charged separate conspiracies | Plea bars review absent record showing court lacked authority; indictments and later filings do not show single conspiracy; claim fails or is waived |
| Vulnerable-victim enhancement under USSG §3A1.1 | Pierre argued incarcerated victims were a class not individual "persons," so enhancement improper | Court found incarceration made victims particularly susceptible; at least one vulnerable victim sufficed | Enhancement sustained; harmless even if error because §3553(a) would support sentence |
| Loss and victim-count enhancements and overlap with Florida sentence | Pierre argued Minnesota double-counted conduct already considered in Florida (possession of SSNs) and that intended-loss (not actual loss) produced unwarranted disparity among co-conspirators; also that sentence should run fully concurrent under USSG §5G1.3(b) | Government and PSR treated Florida and Minnesota as separate crimes; guidelines permit using intended loss; §3553(a)(6) addresses national disparities not co-conspirator differences; district court had discretion on concurrency | Court upheld intended-loss and victim-count enhancements as based on distinct Minnesota conduct; disparities warranted by greater culpability; partial consecutive term under §3553(a) not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional claims predating plea)
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (1989) (guilty plea bars double-jeopardy challenge except where record shows court lacked power to enter conviction)
- United States v. Freeman, 625 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2010) (conditional pleas and scope of preserved appeal issues)
- United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183 (11th Cir. 2016) (Florida convictions and sentence for related tax-fraud scheme)
- United States v. Pierre, 795 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2015) (interlocutory appeal affirming separate conspiracies in Florida and Minnesota indictments)
- United States v. Petruk, 836 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2016) (standard of review for guideline interpretation and factual findings)
- United States v. Anderson, 440 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2006) (vulnerable-victim enhancement applies if one victim qualifies)
- United States v. Thigpen, 848 F.3d 841 (8th Cir. 2017) (harmless-error principles when district court states alternative grounds under §3553(a))
- United States v. Fry, 792 F.3d 884 (8th Cir. 2015) (discussion that §3553(a)(6) directs attention to national, not intra-conspirator, disparities)