United States v. Lendell Beacham
774 F.3d 267
| 5th Cir. | 2014Background
- From 2002 onward Tisdale and Lockhart ran a "pass-through" real-estate mortgage-fraud scheme: ATM/KLT contracted to buy properties, immediately sold them to straw purchasers at inflated prices, funded down payments and paid straw buyers bonuses, but did not deliver rental income, causing borrower defaults and lender foreclosures while organizers kept the spread.
- After ATM/KLT dissolved, Tisdale and Lockhart formed new firms (Atilla/Pinnacle and Cowboys Mortgage) and continued the scheme with overlapping participants (including Jones and Beacham).
- Beacham, a licensed realtor/landlord, prepared and provided falsified verification-of-rent (VOR) forms and otherwise assisted particular transactions; other coconspirators forged documents and procured inflated appraisals and false loan applications.
- Indictment charged defendants with conspiracy, wire fraud, and bank fraud; Lockhart and some co-defendants pled guilty; Tisdale, Jones, and Beacham were tried and convicted on conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting counts; each received prison sentences and restitution orders under the MVRA.
- At sentencing the district court applied enhancements for number of victims, sophistication, leadership role, and commission while on probation (as to Tisdale); denied a minor-role reduction to Beacham and attributed multiple losses to him; restitution was calculated for some victims who purchased loans on the secondary market by subtracting foreclosure proceeds from the original loan amounts because secondary-market purchase prices were not in the record.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentences and restitution orders and remanded for resentencing because the district court abused its discretion by using original loan amounts to calculate restitution for secondary-market purchasers and it was unclear whether restitution influenced the custodial terms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 | Gov: evidence showed an agreement, common goal, overlapping participants, and concerted action supporting a single conspiracy | Tisdale/Jones: evidence failed to show agreement or showed a different conspiracy than indicted; Beacham: convictions rely on untrustworthy witnesses | Affirmed: jury reasonably found a single conspiracy and knowledge/intent for each defendant |
| Sufficiency for aiding-and-abetting bank fraud (716 Mustang Ridge) | Gov: Suarez and Holliday’s testimony and forged/fraudulent documents show defendants associated with venture and shared intent | Tisdale/Jones: lacked requisite intent | Affirmed: evidence supported intent to aid bank fraud |
| Sufficiency for aiding-and-abetting wire fraud (1206 Quinlan — Beacham) | Gov: Beacham prepared false VORs, forged/inflated borrower info, accepted payment, and facilitated pass-through | Beacham: acted in good faith, believed transaction legal | Affirmed: jury could infer specific intent and assistance |
| Restitution calculation under MVRA for secondary-market purchasers | Gov: original loan principal minus foreclosure proceeds is reasonable where purchase prices unavailable | Defs: restitution to secondary-market purchasers must be based on purchaser’s actual price paid (not original loan amount) | Reversed as to restitution: district court abused discretion by using original loan amounts for secondary-market purchasers; restitution vacated; sentences vacated and remanded for resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grant, 683 F.3d 639 (5th Cir.) (elements of conspiracy under § 1349)
- United States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d 539 (5th Cir.) (agreement and inference of knowledge from circumstances)
- United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762 (5th Cir.) (single vs. multiple conspiracies factors)
- United States v. Ismoila, 100 F.3d 380 (5th Cir.) (aiding-and-abetting intent standard)
- United States v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812 (5th Cir.) (sophisticated-means enhancement affirmed)
- United States v. Yeung, 672 F.3d 594 (9th Cir.) (loss to secondary-market purchaser measured by purchase price, not unpaid principal)
- United States v. Chaika, 695 F.3d 741 (8th Cir.) (secondary-market purchaser’s loss depends on its purchase price)
- United States v. Arledge, 553 F.3d 881 (5th Cir.) (MVRA requires restitution be supported by record evidence; vacating restitution for unsupported amounts)