United States v. Jefferson
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18023
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jefferson was convicted by a jury of wire fraud, money laundering, and failure to file tax returns, and he received a 90-month sentence plus $8,833,097 in restitution.
- Orenstein solicited investments totaling $8,833,097 by promising access to Liberian government negotiations, with Jefferson allegedly guiding the project and false representations to investors.
- Orenstein delivered investor funds to Jefferson, who used the money for personal living expenses rather than Liberia-related investment in the project.
- Jefferson admitted to agents that he originated the Liberia project and provided information to Orenstein, who relayed it to investors; one witness also mentioned Jefferson’s claim of connections with prominent figures.
- The government relied on testimonial and circumstantial evidence showing Jefferson knew the scheme was fraudulent, while Orenstein’s more modest living contrasted with Jefferson’s extensive personal spending.
- At sentencing, the district court included both charged (Liberia) and uncharged (ferry-boat) conduct in calculating loss and restitution, and kept the guidelines advisory while varying within range.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of wire-fraud/money-laundering evidence | Jefferson argues evidence is uncorroborated and insubstantial. | Government evidence, including Orenstein’s testimony, is sufficient and credibility determinations are not reviewable. | Evidence supports guilt |
| Loss calculation and common scheme | Ferry-boat funds should not be included in loss as uncharged conduct. | All acts within the same common scheme may be used for loss; ferry-boat funds were part of the fraudulent plan. | District court properly included both charged and uncharged conduct |
| Restitution amount vs. loss calculation | Discrepancy between loss estimate and restitution should reduce restitution. | Restitution may reflect broader conduct and not be capped by the loss estimate. | Restoration within district court's discretion; not abuse |
| Reasonableness of sentence | Procedural error for adhering rigidly to guidelines. | District court acknowledged advisory nature of guidelines and varied appropriately. | Sentence within guidelines and substantively reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Anderson, 570 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of wire fraud including use of interstate communications)
- United States v. Erdman, 953 F.2d 387 (8th Cir. 1992) (circumstantial and credibility not requiring corroboration)
- United States v. Carpenter, 422 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2005) (witness credibility and sufficiency standard)
- United States v. Frausto, 616 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2010) (credibility and sufficiency reviewed for appeal)
- United States v. Stroh, 176 F.3d 439 (8th Cir. 1999) (jury credibility assessment is virtually unreviewable)
- United States v. Boesen, 541 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2008) (loss calculation permissible to include related conduct)
- United States v. DeRosier, 501 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2007) (restitution and relevant conduct standards)
- United States v. Farrington, 499 F.3d 854 (8th Cir. 2007) (affirming restitution including unindicted conduct)
- United States v. Ross, 279 F.3d 600 (8th Cir. 2002) (victim restitution may cover broad scheme losses)
- United States v. Manzer, 69 F.3d 222 (8th Cir. 1995) (offense may include transactions beyond indictment)
- United States v. Welsand, 23 F.3d 205 (8th Cir. 1994) (restoration awards uphold broader conduct)
- United States v. Lewis, 557 F.3d 601 (8th Cir. 2009) (broad view of conduct and loss for sentencing)
- United States v. Radtke, 415 F.3d 826 (8th Cir. 2005) (relevant conduct includes acts within same scheme)
- United States v. Chalupnik, 514 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion review for restitution)
- United States v. Erhart, 415 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2005) (loss calculation standards and reasonable estimate)
- United States v. Agboola, 417 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2005) (guidelines loss determination acceptable with reasonable estimates)
- United States v. Shy, 538 F.3d 933 (8th Cir. 2008) (procedural vs substantive review of sentences)