United States v. McFadden, Brown, & Germany
689 F. App'x 76
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants Shawnn McFadden, Allah Brown, and Ahmad Jamal Germany were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and substantive mail fraud for staging accidents involving U-Hauls and submitting false insurance/personal-injury claims.
- Appellants raised multiple challenges on appeal: McFadden asserted a Speedy Trial Act violation, insufficient evidence, improper intended-loss calculation at sentencing, and a due-process challenge to use of co-conspirator testimony; all three raised insufficiency and a multiple-conspiracies/variance claim.
- The district court presided over a complex, multi-defendant indictment; continuances were granted to accommodate plea negotiations and case management.
- The jury heard testimony and documentary evidence (police reports, U-Haul contracts, insurance claims, checks) tying the defendants to staged accidents and fraudulent claims.
- Appellate review applied de novo review for legal issues (e.g., sufficiency) and clear-error or plain-error standards where appropriate for preserved/unpreserved claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial (McFadden) | Gov’t: continuances were justified by interests of justice and case complexity | McFadden: 152 days after waiver violated Speedy Trial Act; counsel ineffective for not moving to dismiss/sever | No violation; continuances reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); no prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Sufficiency of Evidence (all) | Gov’t: documentary and testimonial evidence supported convictions | Defendants: evidence insufficient to prove involvement or mail use (Germany) | Convictions affirmed; any rational juror could find elements proven beyond reasonable doubt; mail-use instruction issue does not change element analysis |
| Intended Loss at Sentencing (McFadden) | Gov’t: face value of claims intended loss; court may presume full face value | McFadden: intended loss overstated; rebuttal evidence lacking | District court’s calculation affirmed; McFadden failed to rebut presumption of full face value |
| Multiple Conspiracies / Variance (all) | Defendants: government proved multiple independent conspiracies, causing prejudicial variance | Gov’t: single overarching scheme to stage U-Haul accidents; evidence consistent with one conspiracy | No plain error; record supports single overall scheme; defendants did not request multiple-conspiracy charge or preserve objection |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lynch, 726 F.3d 346 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for Speedy Trial factual findings)
- United States v. Lucky, 569 F.3d 101 (2d Cir.) (continuances for plea negotiations and Speedy Trial Act discussion)
- United States v. Abad, 514 F.3d 271 (2d Cir.) (prejudice inquiry under Speedy Trial Act)
- United States v. Naiman, 211 F.3d 40 (2d Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Jones, 482 F.3d 60 (2d Cir.) (deference to jury on credibility and inferences)
- United States v. Facen, 812 F.3d 280 (2d Cir.) (sufficiency measured against actual elements, not erroneous instruction)
- United States v. Stephenson, 183 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (use of cooperating witnesses and anti-gratuity statute)
- United States v. Hsu, 669 F.3d 112 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for Guidelines application)
- United States v. Brennan, 395 F.3d 59 (2d Cir.) (loss amount burden and clear-error review)
- United States v. Confredo, 528 F.3d 143 (2d Cir.) (presumption that defendant intended victims to lose full face value)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641 (2d Cir.) (plain-error review for unpreserved conspiracy-variance claims)
- United States v. Rossomando, 144 F.3d 197 (2d Cir.) (plain-error review reference for forfeited claims)