United States v. Leonard Herrington
16-1198
| 3rd Cir. | Dec 22, 2017Background
- Herrington recruited a runner (Michael Jaje) to pose as a loan applicant using a fake driver’s license produced by the fraud leader (Cato); Jaje was arrested at the bank after signing loan documents in the name of a real person (Matthew Baker).
- Herrington was convicted by a jury of (1) conspiracy to commit bank fraud/use of unauthorized access devices, (2) bank fraud and aiding and abetting, and (3) aggravated identity theft and aiding and abetting; his post-trial motion for acquittal on aggravated identity theft was denied.
- The aggravated-identity-theft conviction required proof Herrington knew the identification belonged to a real person.
- The Presentence Report (PSR) recommended no restitution; the Government waited until sentencing day to request $24,921.62 in restitution based on another fraud by the conspiracy.
- The District Court held the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) required imposition of restitution despite the Government’s untimely objection; Herrington appealed both the sufficiency ruling and the restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated identity theft (did Herrington know the ID belonged to a real person?) | Govt: Circumstantial evidence (recruiter’s role, Finn’s testimony, Herrington’s statements, and common-sense inference about bank due diligence) supported a rational juror finding knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. | Herrington: He only recruited a runner and did not participate in or need to know the victim was a real person; Cato handled the application and documents. | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find Herrington knew the ID belonged to a real person. |
| Imposition of restitution despite untimely Government objection to PSR | Govt: MVRA’s mandatory restitution overrides procedural rules; restitution may be imposed for losses by co-conspirators during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. | Herrington: Government waived restitution by failing to timely object under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1) and the local rule. | Affirmed — MVRA’s mandatory-restoration language controls; untimely objection did not relieve the court’s duty to order restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (2009) (aggravated identity theft requires knowing use of another person’s real identification)
- United States v. Smith, 294 F.3d 473 (3d Cir. 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency challenges to jury verdicts)
- United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2005) (appellate court must not usurp jury credibility determinations)
- United States v. Simmonds, 235 F.3d 826 (3d Cir. 2000) (standard of review for restitution orders: plenary for legal questions, abuse of discretion for amounts)
- United States v. Puentes, 803 F.3d 597 (11th Cir. 2015) (MVRA’s "notwithstanding" language takes precedence over conflicting procedural or discretionary rules)