United States v. Lineten Belizaire
774 F.3d 711
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- In Jan. 2012 police stopped Earnest Baldwin and found mail, ~39 debit cards, a laptop, $4,000 cash, and notebooks with ~1,000 individuals’ names, SSNs, DOBs, employer IDs, refund amounts (~$1.8M requested; ~$840k paid), and debit-account numbers; many refunds were loaded onto debit cards.
- Earnest was linked by fingerprints, documents, IP addresses, residence ties, and surveillance photos withdrawing fraudulently loaded cards; convicted of conspiracy to defraud (18 U.S.C. § 286), access-device conspiracy and use (18 U.S.C. § 1029), possession of ≥15 access devices, and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A).
- Earl Baldwin was connected by IP addresses in his name, residence activity, and surveillance of withdrawals; convicted of similar conspiracies and aggravated identity theft and sentenced to 84 months.
- Lineten Belizaire pleaded guilty to the conspiracy and aggravated identity theft and was sentenced to 129 months; he appealed sentencing calculations under the Guidelines.
- The court affirmed convictions and sentences in all respects after reviewing suppression, trial, sufficiency-of-evidence, jury-instruction, and multiple sentencing issues (loss, victims, role enhancements, and restitution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle search suppression (Earnest) | Evidence found post-arrest should have been suppressed; search exceeded scope | Probable cause existed from mail, debit cards, cash in plain view; search of containers permitted | Search lawful; probable cause supported full vehicle and container search (Labron, Houghton) |
| Mistrial for co-defendant’s remarks (Earnest) | Earl’s counsel implicated Earnest and used inflammatory Cain–Abel reference; mistrial required | Remarks were isolated and mostly commentary; no prejudice from mutually antagonistic defenses | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied |
| Sufficiency — conspiracy to submit fraudulent claims (Earnest & Earl) | Defendants: insufficient direct proof they filed returns; limited acts (Earl) or only receipt of proceeds (Earnest) | Government: fingerprints, documents, IPs, surveillance, residence ties, withdrawals, and distribution of proceeds show agreement and overt acts | Evidence sufficient for conspiracy convictions for both defendants |
| Sufficiency — access-device offenses and possession ≥15 devices (Earnest; Earl) | Defendants: lack of personal possession/knowledge of cards; limited use | Constructive possession and agreement inferred from driver control, fingerprints, mixed documents, reordered cards, and withdrawals | Jury reasonably found constructive possession and access-device conspiracy participation |
| Aggravated identity theft — knowledge that IDs belonged to real persons (Earnest; Earl) | Defendants: insufficient proof they knew IDs were of real people | Presence of victim-specific documents, IRS verification inherent in refunds, successful testing/use of IDs, repeated use and withdrawals | Sufficient circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge of real-person identities (Flores‑Figueroa, Gomez‑Castro reasoning) |
| Indictment variance — scrivener’s errors in account numbers (Earl) | Jury instruction correcting last digits constructively amended indictment requiring reversal | Discrepancy was clerical (last digit only); the charged persons and transactions matched trial evidence; at most a variance and no prejudice alleged | Correction treated as clerical/variance, not a constructive amendment; conviction stands |
| Sentencing — attribution of loss, victim count, role enhancements, restitution (All) | Defendants argued district court erred in attributing full conspiracy loss (~$1.8M), applying victim/role/access-device enhancements, and ordering $500,000 restitution | Court relied on trial evidence, PSI, foreseeability of co-conspirators’ acts, defendants’ roles and withdrawals; reasonable estimates allowed for restitution | Sentencing findings and enhancements upheld; restitution amount and joint-and-several liability affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Labron, 518 U.S. 938 (vehicle search without warrant allowed where vehicle is readily mobile and probable cause exists)
- Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (containers in a vehicle may be searched when probable cause for vehicle exists)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on searches incident to arrest; not controlling where independent probable cause exists)
- Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646 (aggravated identity theft requires proof defendant knew the means of identification belonged to another person)
- Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (indictment may be informally corrected for matters of form without grand jury resubmission)
- Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212 (constructive amendment that alters essential elements is reversible error)
- United States v. Keller, 916 F.2d 628 (distinguishing variance from constructive amendment in conspiracy prosecutions)
- United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350 (defendant may be held responsible for reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators at sentencing)
- United States v. Petrie, 302 F.3d 1280 (sentencing court must define scope of criminal activity the defendant agreed to jointly undertake)
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (standard for review of sentence reasonableness)
- United States v. Hunter, 323 F.3d 1314 (sentencing attribution of entire conspiracy loss to limited-participation actors requires individualized findings)