United States v. Maldonado-Passage, 4 F.4th 1097

Joseph Maldonado-Passage ("Joe Exotic") ran an exotic animal park and had a longstanding public feud with animal-rights activist Carole Baskin, who successfully sued him for trademark/copyright infringement.
Maldonado-Passage posted violent threats online and then twice attempted to hire others to murder Baskin: first an employee (Alan Glover) and later an undercover FBI agent ("Mark").
A federal grand jury indicted him on 21 counts, including two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1958 for using interstate facilities in commission of murder-for-hire (Count 1: Glover; Count 2: Mark). The government listed Baskin as a trial witness.
At trial the district court allowed Baskin to remain in the courtroom over Maldonado-Passage’s sequestration request, finding she qualified as a "crime victim" under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). A jury convicted on all counts.
At sentencing the PSR recommended, and the court declined, to group the two § 1958 convictions under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b); that decision increased the Guidelines range. The court sentenced Maldonado-Passage to 264 months’ imprisonment.
On appeal the Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions, held the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Baskin to remain present under the CVRA, but found error in the sentencing grouping decision and vacated the sentence for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether listed government witness Baskin could remain in courtroom despite Rule 615 sequestration request	Maldonado-Passage: Baskin is not a "crime victim" under the CVRA because she suffered no physical harm, so she should be excluded under Rule 615	Government: CVRA gives victims a statutory right to attend unless clear and convincing evidence shows their testimony would be materially altered by exposure to other testimony	Tenth Circuit: CVRA's "victim" does not require physical injury; emotional and pecuniary harms suffice, so district court did not abuse discretion in allowing Baskin to remain
Whether two murder-for-hire convictions must be grouped under U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b)	Maldonado-Passage: Counts involve same victim, multiple acts, and share a common criminal objective (murdering Baskin) so they must be grouped	Government/District Court: Counts involved separate hitmen, plans, and timelines—separate courses of conduct—so grouping not appropriate	Tenth Circuit: The Guideline text requires grouping when acts share a common criminal objective; the two plots shared the same objective and must be grouped. Sentencing vacated and remanded for resentencing

U.S. ex rel. Bahrani v. ConAgra, Inc., 624 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for sequestration decisions)
Johnson v. Spencer, 950 F.3d 680 (10th Cir. 2020) (de novo review for subsidiary legal questions)
Exby-Stolley v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 979 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2020) (statutory interpretation warns against adding requirements not in text)
United States v. Gallant, 537 F.3d 1202 (10th Cir. 2008) (nonphysical harms can make someone a "victim" under MVRA)
United States v. Speakman, 594 F.3d 1165 (10th Cir. 2010) (MVRA and CVRA victim definitions are virtually identical)
United States v. Norman, 951 F.2d 1182 (10th Cir. 1991) (counts on separate days grouped where single criminal objective and one composite harm existed)
United States v. Garcia, 946 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir. 2020) (discusses "course of conduct" as fact question under § 1B1.3)
United States v. Scott, 145 F.3d 878 (7th Cir. 1998) (discussed separate but concurrent murder plots; cited and distinguished)
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Mgmt. LLC v. Vill. at Lakeridge, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 960 (2018) (clarifies review when factual inferences from undisputed facts are involved)