United States v. Mickey Johnson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17310
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Mickey Johnson pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud arising from a mortgage fraud scheme.
- District court calculated an advisory Guidelines range of 33–41 months and imposed a 33-month sentence.
- Johnson and Beadle operated PMF-related scheme; Johnson oversaw renovations and Beadle financed, with 50/50 ownership.
- Johnson recruited Shaw to obtain loans; he overstated Shaw’s income and misrepresented occupancy intentions.
- Funds and inflated sale prices were arranged to reimburse Beadle; multiple properties foreclosed; Shaw bankrupt.
- Johnson sought to overturn the two-level aggravating role enhancement under § 3B1.1(c); the court determined Johnson qualified as an organizer/leader.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether applying § 3B1.1(c) was proper | Johnson argues Shaw wasn’t a participant, so no lead/organizer role. | Johnson contends his actions directed Shaw and others, justifying the enhancement. | Aggravating role enhancement upheld; Johnson directed Shaw and was an organizer. |
| Whether Shaw qualified as a 'participant' under § 3B1.1 | Shaw’s reliance on Johnson’s misrepresentations negates criminal responsibility. | Shaw admitted to misrepresentations and signed that he knew false information; he remains a participant. | Shaw was a participant; Johnson’s direction supports the enhancement. |
| Whether the sentence is substantively reasonable given co-defendant disparities | Disparities with Beadle and Domecillo undermine reasonableness. | Legitimate distinctions and substantial assistance differences justify disparity. | No abuse of discretion; substantial factors and distinctions support the sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (standard for reviewing sentencing procedures)
- United States v. McDonald, 521 F.3d 975 (8th Cir. 2008) (clearly erroneous review of factual findings underlying enhancements)
- United States v. Richart, 662 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of application of sentencing guidelines)
- United States v. Ali, 616 F.3d 745 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard for challenging guideline determinations)
- United States v. Umanzor, 617 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 2010) (direction of one participant can justify § 3B1.1 enhancement)
- United States v. Wilder, 597 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2010) (consideration of minimal remorse in § 3553(a) balancing)
- United States v. Mees, 640 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing within guidelines)