United States v. Jonas Rogers
769 F.3d 372
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Rogers was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering after a real-estate scheme involving Bracken, a forged or inflated loan application, and funds diverted to Rogers and his mother.
- Bracken testified that Rogers identified properties, arranged financing with falsified income, and directed funds from closings.
- A Woodlands Estates property closing resulted in Bracken receiving funds which Rogers then caused to be turned into cash.
- The district court sentenced Rogers to concurrent 78-month terms and ordered restitution totaling $669,500.
- Rogers challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, subpoena rulings, jury instructions, sentencing enhancements, and the sentence’s reasonableness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit wire fraud (and related money laundering) | Rogers denies evidence shows an agreement and intent to defraud | Rogers contends no evidence of agreement or intent | Evidence supports conspiracy and money laundering conviction |
| Denial of subpoenas for three out-of-state witnesses | Subpoenas were necessary for a complete defense | Requests lacked specific showing of necessity | No abuse of discretion; requests did not show necessity for defense |
| Omission of overt-act requirement in conspiracy instruction | Omitted overt act required under conspiracy law | Section 1349 conspiracy does not require an overt act | No plain error; § 1349 does not require overt acts in this context |
| Leadership enhancement under USSG § 3B1.1 | Rogers exercised leadership in the scheme | Role not sufficient for leadership finding | Two-level leadership enhancement affirmed based on control and orchestration by Rogers |
| Sentence reasonableness and procedural adequacy | Sentence at high end of range may be procedurally and substantively unreasonable | Record supports within-range sentence and lack of plain error | Sentence affirmed; presumption of reasonableness applied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (sufficiency review allows circumstantial evidence; no substitution of judge for jury)
- Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements of wire fraud conspiracy and evidence standards)
- Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (overturns overt-act requirement for § 1349 conspiracies in some contexts)
- Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2005) (no overt act needed for conspiracy to commit money laundering under § 1956(h))
- Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2005) (discusses overt-act requirement under pre-1349 framework)
- Cantrell, 278 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2001) (overt acts discussed in pre-1349 conspiracy context)
- Crosgrove, 637 F.3d 646 (6th Cir. 2011) (statutory context of conspiracy cases matters for overt-act inquiry)
- Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (U.S. 1994) (overt act not required for certain conspiracies)