United States v. Jerry Stauffer
695 F. App'x 916
6th Cir.2017Background
- Stauffer ran a purported forex fund in Michigan (2009–2015), solicited investor funds, provided forged Interactive Brokers (IB) statements, and used incoming funds to pay earlier investors and personal expenses — a Ponzi scheme. Total investor funds ≈ $1.92M; several victims lost substantial sums.
- Government indicted Stauffer on one count of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343) and one count of money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957). Trial lasted four days; defense presented no evidence and Stauffer did not testify.
- IB’s compliance records contradicted the IB statements provided to investors (account types, funding history, branch), and FBI/IRS/CFTC investigations showed investor funds were deposited into Stauffer’s personal accounts. Jury convicted on both counts.
- Before trial, Stauffer sought Criminal Justice Act (CJA) funds (~$4,000) for a digital-forensic expert to seek metadata supporting the authenticity of the IB statements; the district court denied the request because retained counsel had represented available resources and the court doubted the forensic exam would yield favorable evidence.
- At sentencing the district court applied (1) a four-level Sentencing Guidelines enhancement for being a commodity pool operator (CPO) under the commodities-law enhancement, and (2) a two-level obstruction-of-justice adjustment after findings that Stauffer backed up and deleted IB-related files before surrendering his computer to CFTC investigators. Stauffer received concurrent 120-month sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stauffer) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of CJA funds for a digital-forensic expert | Court abused discretion; expert was necessary to mount a plausible defense and show IB statements were genuine | District court properly found retained counsel had resources, expert costs foreseeable/affordable, and forensic exam unlikely to produce favorable evidence | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; CJA funds not necessary and defendant not prejudiced without them (Gilmore standard) |
| Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim tied to CJA denial | Trial counsel ineffective for failing to obtain expert / challenge denial | Appellate review should not decide ineffectiveness on direct appeal; claim better raised under § 2255 | Court declined to decide ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal; preserved for § 2255 review (Massaro) |
| Commodities-law (CPO) Sentencing enhancement | Forex is not a covered „commodity"; Erksine suggests limits on CFTC jurisdiction over forex; thus enhancement inapplicable | Dodd-Frank expanded CEA to cover forex; Stauffer accepted funds for a pooled forex fund, satisfying CPO definition regardless of whether he actually traded | Affirmed — enhancement properly applied because defendant accepted pooled funds for forex trading (statutory scope after Dodd-Frank) |
| Obstruction-of-justice sentencing adjustment | Deletions and backup could have innocent explanations (e.g., defragmentation); adjustment unjustified | Forensic evidence showed last-minute backup and use of deletion tools before surrender; conduct intended to destroy evidence relevant to parallel CFTC investigation and criminal case | Affirmed — district court reasonably found by preponderance that defendant intentionally deleted/ concealed material evidence, supporting § 3C1.1 adjustment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gilmore, 282 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2002) (standard for CJA funds for expert services)
- United States v. Bridgewater, 606 F.3d 258 (6th Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review standard)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2003) (generally decline ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
- United States v. Williams, 612 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2010) (procedural posture on ineffective-assistance claims)
- United States v. Greeno, 679 F.3d 510 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for guideline interpretation and factual findings at sentencing)
- United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (procedural reasonableness and guidelines calculation)
- Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Erksine, 512 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2008) (CFTC jurisdictional limits addressed pre-Dodd-Frank)
- United States v. Luca, 183 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 1999) (parallel regulatory investigations can support obstruction adjustment)