United States v. Jeffrey Cole Bennett
765 F.3d 887
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Clayton Hogeland had broad authority at Advantage Transportation, including contracting and approving invoices.
- Clayton recommended Bennett be hired to oversee Advantage's Memphis office in 2003.
- Bennett created four shell corporations and, with Clayton's approval, sent fraudulent invoices to Advantage and diverted funds to Bennett and Jennifer.
- Bennett's corporations paid Jennifer and largely withdrew funds; Bennett ultimately received about $393,091 from the scheme.
- Clayton ran a separate scheme with Carl Frey to steer AA freight to Advantage in exchange for payments to Frey; Frey received nearly $90,000.
- After discovery, an indictment charged mail fraud, mail-fraud conspiracy, money-laundering conspiracy, and income-tax evasion; Bennett, Clayton, and Jennifer were convicted on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Limitations for mail-fraud and conspiracy | Bennett: counts barred by statute of limitations | Bennett: limitations began before indictment; Pemberton controls | Not barred; limitations ran from mailing within period; conspiracy count also timely |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for mail-fraud | Bennett contends no mail, receipt, or in-furtherance proof | Bennett contends evidence insufficient | Evidence supported mailing, receipt, and conduct in furtherance of fraud |
| Sixth Amendment and sentencing enhancements | Bennett: enhancements based on facts not jury-found | Bennett: Alleyne requires jury-founding of facts affecting range | Enhancements within advisory range; no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Effect of Clayton's death on Bennett's convictions | Bennett asserts abatement and other prejudicial effects | Bennett requests severance and consistency benefits | Clayton's death abated only as to him; Bennett's convictions remain valid; no severance or consistency reversal |
| Severance under Rule 14 | Jennifer argues severance necessary due to prejudicial joint trial | Jennifer contends risk of prejudice; instructions insufficient | No abuse of discretion; limiting instructions sufficiently protected separate consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Crooker v. United States, 325 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1963) (abates ab initio when co-defendant dies)
- Howe, 591 F.2d 454 (8th Cir. 1979) (abating rules for deceased co-defendant)
- Mueller, 661 F.3d 338 (8th Cir. 2011) (statutory limitations standard for indictments de novo review)
- Crossley, 224 F.3d 847 (6th Cir. 2000) (mail-fraud limitation start depends on mailing use; procedural timing)
- Pemberton, 121 F.3d 1157 (8th Cir. 1997) (date of mailing determines mail-fraud limitations; last mailing timing)
- Dolan, 120 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 1997) (last overt act for conspiracy timing in limitations analysis)
- Eisen, 974 F.2d 246 (2d Cir. 1992) (mail-fraud limitations timing context)
- Shyres, 898 F.2d 647 (8th Cir. 1990) (courts may infer mail usage from business practices)
- Kieffer, 621 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2010) (mails used can be inferred from delivery history)
- Mallett, 751 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 2014) (limiting jury instructions to prevent prejudice in joint trials)
- Mann, 685 F.3d 714 (8th Cir. 2012) (severance analysis and real prejudice standard)
- Lee, 374 F.3d 637 (8th Cir. 2004) (evidence admissibility and severance considerations)