United States v. Jermar Jones, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10796

Jones, a former Navy sailor, was convicted on eleven counts for arranging fraudulent marriages between sailors and foreign nationals to obtain BAH and back pay.
Jailhouse recordings between Jones, Otis, and Austin were admitted; Otis and Austin made statements challenged as hearsay and, for Confrontation Clause purposes, as testimonial.
The district court admitted Otis and Austin’s statements under the coconspirator exception to hearsay to provide context for Jones’s own statements.
Juror No. 42, a conservative radio host with views on immigration, was not struck for cause; the court found she could be impartial despite expressed beliefs.
At sentencing, the district court grouped Counts 10 (witness tampering) with the false-claims counts (6–8) or, more precisely, followed guidelines to group the most serious obstruction count with the underlying offense.
The court calculated total loss as $134,702.39 for BAH, applying a ten-level increase under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(F) and ordering restitution in the same amount.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause violation	Jones argued Otis and Austin gave testimonial statements.	Jones contends the calls were testimonial and should have been excluded absent cross-examination.	No Confrontation Clause violation; statements not testimonial and properly admitted under coconspirator exception.
Impartial jury—Juror No. 42	Bias from conservative immigration views could taint verdict.	Court should strike for cause due to potential prejudice.	Court did not abuse discretion; juror reassured impartiality and could render a fair verdict.
Guilty-Phase groupings under USSG	District court should group all obstruction counts with the underlying offenses.	Only the most serious obstruction count should be grouped with the underlying offense.	Properly grouped the most serious obstruction count (Count 10) with underlying false-claims; two-step reasoning followed USSG 3C1.1 and 3D1.2.
Total loss calculation	All loss amounts, including post-confession payments, should be counted as loss.	Confessed losses should be treated as non-foreseeable post-confession funds not reasonably attributable.	Reasonable foreseeability supported including continued payments after confession; loss calculation affirmed.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause for testimonial statements)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (U.S. 2011) (definition of testimonial statements not exhaustively defined)
U.S. v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2008) (contextual inquiry for testimonial statements)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (emergency statements not testimonial)
U.S. v. Shavers, 693 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2012) (inmates advised of recording not automatically testimonial)
U.S. v. Cabrera-Beltran, 660 F.3d 742 (4th Cir. 2011) (recorded statements context; not automatically testimonial)
Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 (U.S. 1975) (juror impartiality and credibility of assurances)
U.S. v. Corrado, 304 F.3d 593 (4th Cir. 2002) (reliability of juror assurances in plain-vanilla impartiality)
U.S. v. Beckner, 983 F.2d 1380 (6th Cir. 1993) (grouping obstruction offenses with underlying offenses)
Allmendinger, 706 F.3d 330 (4th Cir. 2013) (loss estimation in fraud cases; foreseeability and reasonableness)
Miller, 316 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2003) (reasonableness of loss estimation under USSG 2B1.1)