559 F. App'x 438
6th Cir.2014Background
- December 2009: Augustin bought counterfeit cocaine, paid $4,200 of an agreed $5,100; he and Dais then abducted middleman Robert Jordan and Jordan’s friend Curtis Smith to ransom the $4,200.
- Augustin held Jordan bound and threatened him with a revolver, allegedly pulled the trigger at Jordan (gun misfired) and then fired at a bird; Smith was released to arrange ransom.
- After arrests, Augustin mailed letters and made jail calls seeking a hit on three witnesses (Jordan, Smith, Watkins).
- A federal jury convicted Augustin of kidnapping (18 U.S.C. §1201), 924(c) firearm offense (including a 120‑month mandatory minimum for discharge), felon-in-possession, mail‑use murder‑for‑hire (18 U.S.C. §1958), three counts of hiring to kill witnesses (18 U.S.C. §1512(a)(1)(A)), and attempting to obstruct justice (18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2)). Dais was convicted of kidnapping, 924(c), and felon‑in‑possession.
- District court denied motions to dismiss kidnapping counts and to sever; sentenced Augustin to 500 months aggregate and Dais to 390 months. Appeals followed raising sufficiency, statutory constitutionality, severance, Alleyne, constructive amendment, and sentencing challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Augustin/Dais' Argument | Government/Other Side | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — §1201 interstate nexus (use of cellphone) | They did not themselves “use” an instrumentality of interstate commerce because Jordan made the call | Forcible use of Jordan’s cellphone to obtain ransom satisfies “use” — defendants employed the phone in furtherance of the crime | Evidence sufficient; cellphone use satisfies §1201 |
| Sufficiency — ransom element & aiding/abetting | Dais: he did not personally demand ransom, so cannot be guilty of ransom kidnapping | Aiding and abetting imputes Augustin’s ransom demand to Dais under 18 U.S.C. §2 | Conviction sustained; aiding/abetting liability applies |
| Sufficiency — §1958 murder‑for‑hire (agreement/quid pro quo) | Augustin: no completed agreement or consideration with hitman shown | §1958 requires intent that a murder be committed; use of mail to solicit and offer payment suffices even absent completed contract | Evidence sufficient to support §1958 conviction |
| Alleyne / sentencing factfinding (discharge of firearm) | Augustin: judicial finding of discharge increased mandatory minimum; jury should have decided | Government concedes judicial finding error but argues harmlessness given undisputed evidence | Plain‑error review; error harmless — undisputed evidence shows discharge; sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (any rational trier of fact standard)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993) (statutory "use" construed by ordinary meaning and examples of nontraditional use)
- United States v. Ransbottom, 914 F.2d 743 (6th Cir. 1990) (§1958 conviction requires intent that contract killing be committed; no requirement that agreement be completed)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) (limits of Commerce Clause and categories of regulation)
- United States v. Weathers, 169 F.3d 336 (6th Cir. 1999) (cell phones are instrumentalities of interstate commerce even absent evidence of interstate calls)
- United States v. Mack, 729 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2013) (Alleyne challenges and harmless‑error/plain‑error analysis for judicial factfinding that increases mandatory minimum)