United States v. Jenkins
633 F.3d 788
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Arrested for a pump-and-dump scheme involving UniDyn stock run by Jenkins and Gentry.
- Jenkins and Gentry controlled offshore nominee entities and aliases to conceal ownership.
- Proceeds were laundered through Canadian brokerage accounts and various U.S. and international banks.
- MLAT-based requests to Canada sought records; government sought to suspend statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3292.
- District court suspended limitations starting March 16, 2005; indictment returned May 3, 2006.
- Jenkins and Gentry were convicted on multiple securities, wire, money-laundering, tax, and conspiracy counts; sentences issued accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3292 suspension was properly supported | Jenkins; Gentry argue insufficient evidentiary support | Jenkins; Gentry contend March 22, 2005 application lacked evidentiary value | Partially granted; evidence adequate to support suspension |
| Whether the suspension timing revived expired counts | Government | Bischel precedent binds; cannot revive expired counts | Court held March 16, 2005 start valid; June 20, 2005 supplement revived counts within limits |
| Final action under § 3292 | Canada's July 5, 2005 response ended action | Final action occurred earlier or later based on communications | Final action occurred April 12, 2006; all counts timely |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict on counts | Evidence supported materiality and intent | Insufficient evidence for some securities/wire acts | Evidence sufficient for all challenged counts |
| Sentencing calculations and substantive reasonableness | Loss and victim calculations supported enhancements | Potential miscalculations; challenge to proportionate sentence | Court affirmed sentences and loss/victim determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2004) (minimum evidentiary burden for § 3292 applications with foreign evidence)
- United States v. DeGeorge, 380 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2004) (standards for reviewing § 3292 suspensions; evidentiary threshold)
- United States v. Bischel, 61 F.3d 1429 (9th Cir. 1995) (official request timing starts tolling; § 3292 starts before indictment)
- United States v. Hagege, 437 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 2006) (final action requires dispositive response on each item)
- United States v. Showalter, 569 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2009) (victim count and loss considerations at sentencing)
- United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) (definition of proceeds vs profits in money laundering; statutory amendment)
- United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (sufficiency review; standard of review for evidence)
- Alghazouli v. United States, 517 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review for evidentiary/Confrontation issues)