United States v. Mohammed Keita
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2248
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant Mohammed Keita was convicted by a federal jury of multiple credit/debit card fraud offenses based on cloned cards and related conduct.
- On January 31, 2012, federal agents executed a search warrant at Keita's residence, seizing laptops, cloned cards, and related devices; Keita was arrested that day.
- The government moved to extend the Speedy Trial Act deadline due to ongoing plea negotiations, resulting in two continuances extending indictment filing into April 2012.
- Indictment was filed on April 9, 2012, charging three counts of access device fraud, three counts of aggravated identity theft, and related offenses.
- At trial in August 2012, evidence included surveillance videos, expert testimony, and witnesses linking Keita to the cloned-card scheme and losses.
- At sentencing, the court concluded the loss amount was $136,838.30, combining actual losses and intended losses; Keita challenged these calculations but the challenges were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act dismissal | Keita argues ACT violations require dismissal. | Keita contends delays were improper. | No error; clock properly excluded; dismissal not required. |
| Admission of business records and Confrontation Clause | Business records are non-testimonial and properly admitted. | Records were testimonial and violated confrontation. | No plain error; records not testimonial and properly admitted. |
| Relevance and prejudice of business records | Records probative of access device fraud; not unduly prejudicial. | Records overly prejudicial and not probative. | Plain error not shown; evidence admissible under Rule 403 given strong overall evidence. |
| Loss calculation at sentencing | Loss established by preponderance of the evidence; reasonable estimate permitted. | Challenged the accuracy of the loss figures. | No clear error; district court’s conservatively reasoned loss figure affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leftenant, 341 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2003) (interpretation of Speedy Trial Act exclusions for plea negotiations)
- United States v. Stoudenmire, 74 F.3d 60 (4th Cir. 1996) (start of speedy-trial clock after triggering event)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (U.S. 2006) (ends-of-justice continuances and their on-the-record findings)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (business records generally non-testimonial when created for administration of affairs)
- Cabrera-Beltran v. United States, 660 F.3d 742 (4th Cir. 2011) (application of Crawford to business records and testimonial considerations)
- United States v. Siegel, 536 F.3d 306 (4th Cir. 2008) (Rule 403 balancing and prejudice standard)
- United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2006) (prejudice balancing under Rule 403 in trial evidence)
- United States v. Miller, 316 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2003) (loss calculation standard at sentencing; reasonable estimate permitted)