United States v. Jeffrey Charles Rodd
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10842
8th Cir.2015Background
- Jeffrey Charles Rodd, an investment advisor and radio host of "Safe Money Radio," was convicted by a jury of four counts of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud for scheming to defraud 23 investors of over $1.8 million.
- Rodd solicited funds by promoting low-risk products and promising liquidity, safety, and a 60% six-month return, then used investor funds for personal and business expenses.
- He operated his own investment company, exercised discretion and control over client funds, and solicited existing clients and family members.
- At sentencing the district court calculated a U.S.S.G. range of 70–87 months (offense level 27, criminal history category I) and imposed an 87-month prison sentence.
- The court applied a two-level U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 enhancement for abuse of a position of trust and denied a two-level § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
- Rodd appealed, challenging the position-of-trust enhancement and, for the first time on appeal, arguing he should have received the acceptance-of-responsibility reduction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodd occupied a position of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 | Government: Rodd’s role as a self-employed investment advisor with control over client funds, amplified by his radio platform and reputation, put him in a position of trust | Rodd: (implicitly) contested application; challenged enhancement on appeal | Court affirmed: no clear error; discretionary control over funds and lack of oversight support § 3B1.3 enhancement |
| Whether Rodd is entitled to a § 3E1.1 acceptance-of-responsibility reduction | Rodd: on appeal argued he should have received the two-level reduction | Government: Rodd went to trial and denied guilt, so reduction not appropriate | Court affirmed: no plain error; denial proper because Rodd denied essential elements at trial and only expressed remorse afterward |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Anderson, 349 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming § 3B1.3 for investment advisor with complete discretion over client funds)
- United States v. Shevi, 345 F.3d 675 (8th Cir. 2003) (no clear error applying enhancement where defendant had substantial discretionary control over trust funds)
- United States v. Baker, 200 F.3d 558 (8th Cir. 2000) (enhancement proper where agent had personal control over premium payments of elderly clients)
- United States v. Wanna, 744 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for plain-error challenge to denial of acceptance reduction)
- United States v. Roggy, 76 F.3d 189 (8th Cir. 1996) (denial of acceptance reduction affirmed where defendant continued to deny fraud despite remorse)