United States v. Joseph Pacheco, III, 466 F. App'x 517

Pacheco robbed five eastern Michigan banks between Oct 15–29, 2007 using demand notes and non-violent means.
He was arrested Oct 30, 2007 and pled guilty to the five counts in a bank robbery indictment; he represented himself with stand-by counsel.
The district court authorized limited investigative funds in 2009, and later approved additional funds; trial began Sept 14, 2009.
On trial, five tellers identified Pacheco from surveillance and testified about compliance with note demands; no weapon was used.
FDIC bank-examiner Herrera testified the robbed banks’ deposits were insured by the FDIC, and the government introduced FDIC insurance certificates.
At sentencing, the court denied a two-level acceptance of responsibility adjustment and declined to depart for overrepresentation of criminal history, imposing 120-month terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly denied investigative funds	Pacheco argues § 3006A(e)(1) requires funds for a plausible defense.	Pacheco asserts need for funds to interview more witnesses.	No abuse of discretion; defense plausible without extra funds.
Whether the denial of a 30-day continuance was error	Pacheco claims more time would aid his defense.	Government contends witnesses could have been subpoenaed and lack of prejudice.	No abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown.
Whether FDIC-insured status of deposits was proven	Pacheco contends evidence insufficient to show FDIC insurance at robbery time.	Herrera’s testimony plus FDIC certificates prove insured status.	Sufficient evidence that banks’ deposits were FDIC-insured.
Whether acceptance of responsibility was warranted despite trial	Pacheco contends he accepted responsibility even while challenging intimidation element.	Court properly denied credit due to contesting factual guilt.	No adjustment under § 3E1.1; trial-based guilt contestation forecloses.
Whether sentence was procedurally reasonable regarding criminal history overrepresentation	Argues criminal history overrepresented; seeks lower sentence.	Court considered and rejected departure for overrepresentation.	Sentence affirmed; court considered history and 3553(a) factors.

United States v. Gilmore, 282 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard for 3006A funds; necessity and prejudice tests)
United States v. Smith, 1 F.3d 1243 (6th Cir. 1993) (continuance and intimidation considerations in bank robbery context (table))
United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (continuance standards and prejudice analysis)
Davis v. Lafler, 658 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. en banc) (standard for sufficiency of evidence and appellate review en banc)
United States v. Frazier, 595 F.3d 304 (6th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review for sufficiency where no Rule 29 motion)
United States v. Roberge, 565 F.3d 1005 (6th Cir. 2009) (evidence sufficiency; standard of review for sufficiency after conviction)
United States v. Rowan, 518 F.2d 685 (6th Cir. 1975) (bank-deposits insured status evidence rule; JD elements)
United States v. Jenkins, 345 F.3d 928 (6th Cir. 2003) (foundation for business records via custodian or qualified witness)
United States v. Baker, 458 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2006) (broad interpretation of ‘qualified witness’ for business records)
United States v. Morrison, 10 F. App’x 275 (6th Cir. 2001) (acceptance of responsibility when challenging non-guilt elements)