United States v. James Van Doren
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15678
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- In 2013 a grand jury returned a third superseding indictment charging a multi-person scheme involving bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering; Van Doren was named in seven counts and pleaded guilty to count 24 (money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957).
- Count 24 alleged Van Doren aided Barber by transmitting $22,000 from Van Doren’s Citibank account to The Barber Group account, funds derived from wire fraud. The plea’s factual basis described a $64,000 check endorsed to Van Doren, a $22,000 wire to Barber’s account, and an agreement to conceal Barber’s funds from creditors.
- After pleading guilty, Van Doren moved to withdraw his plea asserting factual innocence (he said he misrepresented nothing and engaged in routine banking transactions); the district court denied the motion and denied reconsideration.
- At sentencing the court used a $244,000 loss figure (comprised of the $64,000 check, $30,000 cash delivered and deposited, and $150,000 wired to an entity tied to Van Doren) to apply a 12-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G). Van Doren argued loss should be limited to $22,000, yielding a smaller enhancement.
- The district court sentenced Van Doren to 15 months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release; this appeal challenges denial of plea withdrawal, the sufficiency of the factual basis, and the loss calculation at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Van Doren can withdraw his guilty plea because the plea lacked an adequate factual basis | Van Doren: count 24 (money laundering) lacks specification of the wire-fraud factual predicates; government relied on concealment without alleging a specific false representation, so plea is unsupported | Government/District Court: the plea’s factual basis admits an agreement to conceal Barber’s funds and a $22,000 wire in furtherance of a scheme to defraud creditors; that suffices for wire fraud and for count 24 | Affirmed: plea supported by an adequate factual basis; district court did not abuse its discretion denying withdrawal |
| Whether Van Doren’s asserted actual innocence supplies a fair and just reason to withdraw plea | Van Doren: he was factually innocent and misrepresented nothing; conscience-driven recantation warrants withdrawal | Government: sworn plea allocution and factual basis outweigh later assertions of innocence; concealment theory of fraud applies | Affirmed: recantation/actual innocence claim insufficient to overcome plea allocution |
| Whether loss for sentencing should be limited to $22,000 or include other transfers ($64,000, $30,000, $150,000) as part of the same scheme | Van Doren: loss should be limited to the $22,000 wired (the laundered amount) resulting in a smaller Guidelines enhancement | Government/District Court: under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 and relevant-conduct principles, all reasonably foreseeable transactions in the jointly undertaken scheme are attributable; the three transfers were part of the same scheme and support the $244,000 loss | Affirmed: district court did not clearly err; the $244,000 loss and 12-level enhancement were appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Gamble v. United States, 327 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard for assessing adequacy of factual basis for guilty plea)
- Heid v. United States, 651 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 11(d) withdrawal standard and requirements)
- Cheney v. United States, 571 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2009) (when a guilty plea is supported by a sufficient factual basis)
- Steffen v. United States, 687 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2012) (wire fraud can be established by concealment under common-law fraud principles)
- Colton v. United States, 231 F.3d 890 (4th Cir. 2000) (distinguishing concealment from mere nondisclosure in fraud context)
- Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005) (common-law fraud includes schemes that deprive victims of money via concealment)
- Battle v. United States, 774 F.3d 504 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for legal conclusions and factual findings in guideline enhancements)
- Norwood v. United States, 774 F.3d 476 (8th Cir. 2014) (preponderance standard for sentencing factfinding)
- Andreano v. United States, 417 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2005) (conduct underlying dismissed counts may be used as relevant conduct for sentencing)
- Hare v. United States, 49 F.3d 447 (8th Cir. 1995) (for § 1957 money-laundering conviction government need only show defendant knew funds were criminally derived)