908 F.3d 41
4th Cir.2018Background
- Camara participated in a scheme run by Ray Ekobena to buy luxury cars using stolen identities and resell them at steep discounts; Ekobena pleaded guilty to related felonies and Camara was later indicted and tried.
- Indictment charged one-count conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to violate §§ 2312, 2313, and 1343, alleging Camara conspired “with Ray Ekobena and others, known and unknown.”
- Trial evidence tied Camara to five transactions: he bought two cars from Ekobena (using forged or no titles), arranged fraudulent temporary tags, introduced buyers to Ekobena, assisted deliveries, and connected a mechanic who attempted to purchase a car.
- After initial jury instructions repeating the indictment language, the jury asked whether they had to agree Camara conspired specifically with Ray; the court answered that the government must prove Camara conspired with Ray or others.
- Jury convicted Camara; district court sentenced him to 36 months. Camara appealed alleging (1) the supplemental instruction constructively amended the indictment (Fifth Amendment) and (2) violated venue/right-to-trial-in-district (Sixth Amendment); he also challenged loss calculation and a business-of-receiving enhancement at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Camara's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court’s supplemental instruction constructively amended indictment (Fifth Amendment) | The court’s saying the government can prove conspiracy with “Ray or others” allowed conviction for a conspiracy that did not include Ray, broadening the indictment | Identity of co-conspirator is not an element; the indictment alleged conspiracy with Ray "and others," so the instruction did not change elements or prejudice defense | No constructive amendment; instruction did not alter elements nor prejudice Camara; affirmed |
| Whether supplemental instruction defeated venue/right-to-trial-in-district (Sixth Amendment / Rule 18) | If jury could convict on a conspiracy not involving Ray, there might be no nexus to Eastern District of Virginia (Ray supplied that connection), so venue could be improper | Venue proper if any conspirator committed an overt act in the district; evidence showed acts in the Eastern District (calls, vehicle movement, Camara drove a stolen car through Arlington) and jurors are presumed to follow venue instructions | No reversible error (plain-error standard); sufficient evidence of acts in Eastern District; affirmed |
| Whether loss calculation overstated attributable loss for Guidelines | Loss should be limited to the two cars Camara directly purchased from Ekobena | Loss attributable to him includes transactions within the scope of the conspiracy; district court’s factual finding stands | Loss calculation affirmed (factual finding not clearly erroneous) |
| Whether two-level §2B1.1(b)(4) enhancement for being in business of receiving/selling stolen property was proper | Enhancement unwarranted; Camara’s role was limited in some transactions | Totality of circumstances supports enhancement (regularity, value, facilitation, payments) | Enhancement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, 810 F.3d 932 (4th Cir. 2016) (grand jury’s role and limits on altering indictment)
- United States v. Day, 700 F.3d 713 (4th Cir. 2012) (permitting alternative theories of liability does not equal constructive amendment)
- United States v. Behler, 14 F.3d 1264 (8th Cir. 1994) (supplemental instruction removing specific co-conspirator identity did not constitute constructive amendment)
- United States v. Weissman, 899 F.2d 1111 (11th Cir. 1990) (instruction allowing proof of a different RICO enterprise than the one named in indictment constituted constructive amendment)
- United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2017) (elements of § 371 conspiracy)
- United States v. Am. Waste Fibers Co., 809 F.2d 1044 (4th Cir. 1987) (identity of conspirators is not essential element of conspiracy)
- Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367 (1951) (one can be convicted of conspiring with persons whose names are unknown)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain error standard for unpreserved claims)