United States v. John Roberts
919 F.3d 980
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- John Roberts and seven coconspirators stole military equipment from a local Army base and sold items on eBay; Roberts was convicted on one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), ten counts of wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and two counts of unauthorized export (22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2)).
- The district court applied multiple Guidelines enhancements, including a large loss enhancement for >$3.5M in stolen goods, mass-marketing, being in the business of receiving/selling stolen property, sophisticated means, leadership, and obstruction for false trial testimony; Roberts was sentenced to 180 months (below the Guidelines range).
- At trial Roberts sought to admit contemporaneous eBay listings by other sellers to negate knowledge; the district court excluded the listings as more prejudicial/confusing than probative.
- Roberts moved for $2,500 in CJA funds to hire a forensic accountant to challenge the government’s loss valuation; the district court denied the request in a brief order.
- At sentencing the judge relied on witness estimates (court-found facts) to calculate loss and applied the obstruction enhancement after a brief statement that Roberts “testified falsely,” with little—if any—independent factual findings on perjury.
- On appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed most rulings but vacated and remanded the loss-value and obstruction enhancements for procedural defects and inadequate findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of eBay listings at trial | Roberts: listings show similar items sold publicly, undercutting mens rea and supporting accident/innocent sale | Govt: offered coconspirator testimony and texts proving knowledge; listings are low probative value and risk jury confusion | Affirmed — district court did not abuse discretion; exclusion harmless given other strong evidence of knowledge |
| Denial of CJA funds for forensic accountant | Roberts: accountant necessary to challenge valuation (depreciation, used items) and to mount a plausible defense; lack prejudiced sentencing | Govt: valuation was driven primarily by eBay sales prices and court-found estimates; accountant would not change sentence outcome | Affirmed — denial not reversible error; even if erroneous, harmless because eBay sales alone exceeded threshold driving enhancement |
| Sixth Amendment claim re: denial of funds | Roberts: denial deprived him of effective assistance by preventing counsel from challenging loss at sentencing | Govt: claim is properly a CJA/administrative claim, not an ineffective-assistance claim | Rejected — court treats it as CJA contention and finds no reversible error |
| Judge-found facts at sentencing (loss valuation) | Roberts: court should not rely on unclear valuation or aggregate items without adequate findings; Rule 32 required explicit ruling on disputed facts | Govt: court’s findings and witness testimony supported the loss estimate | Vacated and remanded — district court failed to make adequate Rule 32 findings on loss; remand for resentencing and reassessment of CJA request if loss drops below $3.5M |
| Obstruction enhancement for perjury | Roberts: court did not make the required independent, specific findings under Dunnigan and Sassanelli; relied on jury verdict and brief statement | Govt: defendant testified and court could infer falsehoods from record | Vacated and remanded — district court’s eleven-word statement insufficient under Dunnigan/Sassanelli; court must make independent findings or resentence without enhancement |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentence | Roberts: sentence improperly accounted for expected good-time credit or otherwise unreasonable | Govt: district court reasonably weighed factors; mention of good-time credits not determinative | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; mention of good-time credit did not render sentence substantively unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chambers, 441 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2006) (appellate caution in reviewing evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Wagner, 382 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard for abuse of discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless-error standard for federal habeas and analogous harmlessness inquiry)
- United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (requirements for sentencing enhancement based on defendant’s false trial testimony)
- United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 2007) (Rule 32 duties when defendant disputes facts in presentence report)
- United States v. Vonner, 516 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (plain-error standard for unpreserved sentencing objections)
- United States v. Sassanelli, 118 F.3d 495 (6th Cir. 1997) (decision describing Dunnigan requirements for finding perjury at sentencing)
- United States v. Clark, 982 F.2d 965 (6th Cir. 1993) (best practice that district court identify specific statements constituting obstruction of justice)