United States v. Gayekpar, 678 F.3d 629

Gayekpar and Boe were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess altered currency with intent to defraud; Boe was also convicted on two counts of possession of altered currency with intent to defraud.
Gayekpar received a 21-month sentence; Boe received a total of one year and one day on each count, to be served concurrently.
The scheme involved altering currency to appear genuine, demonstrated to the informant in Minnesota and documented in hotel room surveillance.
Post-arrest, Boe waived Miranda rights and gave an oral confession; Karbadeh also confessed; Gayekpar declined to speak initially.
The government sought to introduce Gayekpar’s prior 2006 conviction for possession of altered obligations; the related testimony described underlying circumstances.
During trial, Boe’s redacted post-arrest statement mentioning a three-way split of proceeds raised Confrontation Clause concerns for Gayekpar, because no limiting instruction was given.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Gayekpar’s prior conviction	404(b) should admit prior similar acts to show knowledge.	Prior conviction should be excluded as prejudicial.	Admissible under 404(b) to prove knowledge.
Admission of Agent Propes's testimony about the underlying circumstances	Background about prior conviction admissible; relevant to knowledge.	Hearsay; not proper background.	Not an abuse of discretion; plain error not established.
Limitation of Boe’s redacted post-arrest statement and Confrontation Clause	Redaction plus limiting instruction would cure Confrontation Clause issue.	Limiting instruction available; redaction sufficient.	Plain-error for failure to give limiting instruction; nonetheless no reasonable probability of different outcome.
Validity of Boe’s Miranda waiver	Waiver valid; written statement not required.	Waiver not voluntary/knowing due to language/cultural barriers.	Waiver voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.
Downward adjustment for minor role under USSG § 3B1.2	Both defendants entitled to minor-participant reduction.	No minor-role deduction due to substantial involvement.	No clear error; role was substantial; no minor-participant adjustment.
Procedural sufficiency under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) during sentencing	District court failed to consider § 3553(a) factors.	Court considered § 3553(a) factors; no procedural error.	Court properly considered § 3553(a) factors; no procedural error.

United States v. Stroud, 673 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2012) (relevance of similar prior acts under 404(b) for knowledge)
United States v. James, 564 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2009) (admissibility of prior acts under 404(b))
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (limiting instruction and confrontation principle in joint trials)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (non-testifying codefendant's confession in joint trial)
Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (facially incriminating redactions and limiting instructions)
United States v. Logan, 210 F.3d 820 (8th Cir. 2000) (precedent on limiting instruction in redacted statements)
United States v. Rashid, 383 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2004) (plain-error review in Confrontation Clause context)
Granados, 168 F.3d 343 (8th Cir. 1999) (procedural failure to raise argument; plain-error review)