United States v. Morris Fahnbulleh
410 U.S. App. D.C. 18
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- Fahnbulleh and Bondo worked for World Vision Liberia on USAID's Food-for-Work program; they were charged with conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, and false claims, and were tried together with Fahnbulleh convicted on all counts and Bondo convicted on most.
- USAID contracted CRS, which subcontracted to World Vision to administer the program in Liberia; participating Liberian communities performed labor in exchange for food, and documents/reports were generated to satisfy U.S. grant requirements.
- Arrests occurred in 2009; indictments followed later that year; both defendants faced multiple fraud-related counts and a witness-tampering count for Bondo.
- The district court granted multiple extensions under the Speedy Trial Act §3161(h)(8) to delay indictment, based on a foreign-evidence request to Liberia; indictment occurred in late 2009.
- On appeal, defendants challenge speedy-trial timing, subject-matter jurisdiction/venue, admission of government exhibits, denial of a mistrial, and sentencing calculations.
- The panel affirms the district court’s judgment, sustaining convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial timing under STA | Bondo/Fahnbulleh contend delays were improper and prejudice them | District court failed to balance interests and review excluding periods | District court did not clearly err; §3161(h)(8) delay periods proper |
| Subject matter jurisdiction and venue | Conspiracy to defraud USA, not private parties, establishes jurisdiction; venue may be improper | Evidence shows private-party conspiracy; lack of venue | Jurisdiction proper; venue valid due to overt acts in DC |
| Admission of Government Exhibits 100 and 104 | Exhibits were trustworthy business records; admissible under Rule 803(6) and 1006 | Authenticity/trustworthiness (803(6)) and basis for 1006 lacked | Court did not abuse discretion; exhibits properly admitted |
| Denial of mistrial | Prosecutor's improper comments required mistrial | Mistrial necessary due to prejudice from remarks | No abuse of discretion; curative instruction mitigated prejudice |
| Sentencing enhancements | Loss, victims, and leadership enhancements were properly calculated | Loss amount, number of victims, and organizer designation were unsupported | District court’s loss, victims, and organizer findings upheld; reasonable estimates |
Key Cases Cited
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987) (devotes to conspiracies involving federal agencies and scope of charges)
- United States v. Rosenberg, 888 F.2d 1406 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (venue for conspiracy can lie where overt acts occur)
- United States v. Stubblefield, 643 F.3d 291 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (de novo review of STA determinations; fact-findings reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. Gurr, 471 F.3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (review of admission of business records for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Lemire, 720 F.2d 1327 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (permissible use of summarized documents under Rule 1006 when properly authenticated)
- United States v. Bisong, 645 F.3d 384 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (loss calculations may be reasonable estimates for sentencing)
- United States v. Saani, 650 F.3d 761 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (deference to district court’s application of Guidelines; standard of review)