United States v. Irvin
656 F.3d 1151
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Miller and Irvin were charged in an eleven-count indictment alleging conspiracy to defraud mortgage lenders and related offenses arising from subprime lending practices.
- Miller, a builder/developer, used inflated appraisals and false loan documentation, with Sparks and Vanatta facilitating funding for unqualified buyers, and Irvin handling commission payments via her checks due to Vanatta's custodial issues.
- The government's case focused on the Jordan Transaction and other transactions summarized in a government chart (Exhibit 1-2) and the monitoring by Meara King, which led to the investigation and charges.
- Sparks pled guilty and testified as a cooperating witness; other defendants were tried on counts including conspiracy, bank fraud, money laundering, destroying records, corruptly influencing a witness, and criminal contempt related to Miller I.
- The district court admitted Exhibit 1-2 under Rule 1006, and Exhibit 2009, an appraisal, under Rule 803(6); Miller and Irvin challenge these evidentiary rulings on appeal.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reverses Miller's Count 1 and Irvin's Counts 1, 9, and 10, affirms remaining counts, and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Exhibit 1-2 as a Rule 1006 summary | Prosecution contends Rule 1006 permits the summary of voluminous records. | Exhibit 1-2 relied on inadmissible hearsay (loan files) not shown admissible as business records. | District court abused its discretion; Exhibit 1-2 inadmissible under Rule 1006 and 803(6). Harmless for Counts 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 but reversed for Count 1. |
| Admissibility of Exhibit 2009 as a business record | Exhibit 2009 should be admissible as a business record via adoptive/custodian testimony. | Foundational testimony insufficient because the appraiser created the document, not Meara King. | Adoptive business records doctrine supports admissibility; Exhibit 2009 properly admitted. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 2 (Lake Ozark bank fraud) and materiality | Irvin's representations were material to the bank's decision to issue the loan. | Irvin's statements had no material impact on the loan decision. | Evidence supports materiality; Irvin's Count 2 conviction affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 4 (money laundering) and proceeds definition | Transactions involved criminally derived property under §1957; proceeds may be profits per Santos instruction. | Santos instruction should govern and restrict proceeds to profits; not here. | Proceeds mean gross receipts for non-gambling cases; Count 4 affirmed. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count 5 (money laundering tied to Count 3 bank fraud) | Laundered proceeds traced to bank fraud; guilty despite acquittal on Count 3. | If predicate offense is not proven, Count 5 could fail; also issues with aiding/abetting and knowledge. | Evidence supports Count 5; Miller's and Irvin's Count 5 convictions affirmed; inconsistency with Count 3 does not mandate reversal. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 9 & 10 (criminal contempt for release violations) and knowledge | Defendants knowingly violated release conditions by engaging in criminal activity. | Irvin lacked knowledge of Miller's release conditions; cannot support aiding and abetting or co-conspirator theories. | Counts 9 and 10 as to Irvin are reversed for lack of sufficient evidence of knowledge; Miller's Counts 9 and 10 affirmed for others; remand for Miller's case consistent with other holdings. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thompson, 518 F.3d 832 (10th Cir. 2008) (review of Rule 1006 abuse of discretion Harris)
- United States v. Samaniego, 187 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1999) (admissibility of Rule 1006-based summaries requires underlying admissible materials)
- United States v. Ary, 518 F.3d 775 (10th Cir. 2008) (business records exception requirements; adoptive records discussed)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) (materiality standard in bank fraud cases)
- United States v. Thornburgh, 645 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2011) (Santos proceedings and proceeds definition in money laundering)
- United States v. Carranco, 551 F.2d 1197 (10th Cir. 1977) (adoptive records doctrine for business records foundation)
- United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048 (10th Cir. 2004) (law of the case doctrine and jury instructions weight)
- Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent verdicts and judgment of acquittal)