United States v. Goodyke
639 F.3d 869
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Goodyke and Robinson participated in a scheme selling fraudulent diplomatic immunity cards bearing a Department of State seal and an apostille number.
- Defendants claimed the apostille and seal gave legal authority; they marketed the cards as providing immunity and tax avoidance.
- The cards were marketed to numerous buyers who paid amounts ranging from $450 to thousands of dollars.
- The scheme was uncovered when an undercover officer purchased a card; trial testimony included witnesses and a co-defendant who pled guilty.
- At sentencing, the district court applied multiple U.S.S.G. enhancements for loss over $70,000, more than fifty victims, misrepresentation as government agents, and Robinson for obstruction of justice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for §1017 and conspiracy | Goodyke: evidence supports fraudulent intent | Goodyke: insufficient evidence of fraud and agreement | Sufficient evidence to sustain both convictions |
| Loss and number of victims for sentencing | Loss exceeded $70,000; victims ≥50 | Argues smaller loss/victim count; challenge to findings | Findings not clearly erroneous; over $70,000 and ≥50 victims established |
| Misrepresentation as government agents enhancement | Enhancement appropriate due to misrepresentation | Purchasers knew they were not government actors | Enhancement affirmed |
| Robinson obstruction enhancement basis | Enhancement proper based on pretrial conduct | Contest the PSR facts and evidence | Obstruction enhancement supported by pretrial filings; some pet-killing facts improper; error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Inman, 558 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review in this circuit)
- Jenkins-Watts, 574 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of conspiracy under § 371; aiding and agreement need shown)
- Achiekwelu, 112 F.3d 747 (4th Cir. 1997) (enhancement for misrepresentation of government agency applies to all agencies)
- Replogle, 628 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 2011) (need for government to prove contested PSR facts at sentencing)
- James, 328 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2003) (pretrial conduct can support obstruction enhancement)
- Ortiz, 636 F.3d 389 (8th Cir. 2011) (harmless error standard for sentencing procedural error)