United States v. Lakeisha Schaffer
439 F. App'x 344
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- A jury convicted Freddie G. Anderson and LaKeisha Schaffer of conspiracy to steal goods valued over $1000 and interstate theft of goods under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 659.
- The district court sentenced Schaffer to 33 months and Anderson to 41 months, with concurrent terms.
- Schaffer challenged the district court’s calculation of loss for the guidelines offense level; Anderson challenged the admissibility of Agent Creasey’s historical cell site analysis testimony.
- The sentencing loss issue centers on whether the intended loss ($341,000, the fair market value of 31 motorcycles) should govern the guidelines calculation.
- The conspirators initially believed they were stealing a trailer of four-wheelers but discovered motorcycles, continued with the plan to sell, and did not withdraw from the conspiracy per Caicedo; the loss is the greater of actual or intended loss, with actual equal to $341,000 here.
- The court held that Schaffer’s loss finding was correct and that Anderson’s Daubert challenge to historical cell site analysis testimony did not warrant reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Loss calculation for Schaffer | Schaffer contends the district court erred in using $341,000 as intended loss | Schaffer argues the loss calculation overstated actual consequences | Loss finding upheld; intended loss set at $341,000 and actual loss accordingly. |
| Admissibility of historical cell site analysis testimony | Anderson argues the testimony lacked reliability under Daubert and Rule 702 | N/A (defense challenge framed as error in admissibility) | No abuse of discretion; testimony admissible; if error, not reversible given corroborating testimony from Verizon expert. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harris, 597 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 2010) (guidelines loss methodology and de novo review of legal questions)
- United States v. Caicedo, 103 F.3d 410 (5th Cir. 1997) (withdrawal from conspiracy requirement)
- United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2006) (intent to possess conspirators and temporal connection to loss)
- United States v. Urias-Escobar, 281 F.3d 165 (5th Cir. 2002) (loss greater of actual or intended)
- United States v. Morgan, 505 F.3d 332 (5th Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for expert testimony)
- United States v. Weathers, 169 F.3d 336 (6th Cir. 1999) (cell site analysis admissibility in some circuits)
- United States v. Sepulveda, 115 F.3d 882 (11th Cir. 1997) (cell site analysis testimony recognized as expert)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) ( Daubert factors flexible; not all apply in every case)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Daubert factors for reliability of scientific expert testimony)