898 F.3d 1151
11th Cir.2018Background
- Naomie Maitre was indicted on conspiracy to possess 15+ unauthorized access devices (18 U.S.C. §1029) and related counts, including two aggravated identity theft counts (18 U.S.C. §1028A). A jury convicted her on all counts except one possession count; she was sentenced to 94 months.
- Miami police investigated early-morning car burglaries; surveillance tied suspects to 11804 NW 1st Avenue. On Nov. 12 officers found IDs, credit cards, and other personal items in a crashed vehicle and later collected over 350 victims’ IDs/credit cards from Maitre’s residence after consented search.
- Between Nov. 12 and Jan. 7 police continued surveillance; Maitre engaged in evasive "heat runs." On Jan. 7 officers observed co-defendants return stolen property to the house, stopped a car where burglary tools and a stolen phone were in plain view, and recovered purses and a license plate from a dumpster.
- A search warrant on Jan. 7 uncovered numerous stolen purses, 1,348 access-device items (per officer), bundles of IDs (including two items used in aggravated-identity-theft counts), a loaded gun, ammunition matching ammunition found in Maitre’s underwear drawer, and many phones/chargers.
- Defense witnesses (a long-time friend and co-defendant Smith) claimed Maitre was unaware and received purses as gifts; Smith also testified he hid criminal activity from her but admitted many items were in locations accessible or in plain view.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deliberate-ignorance jury instruction was proper | Maitre: no evidence she purposely avoided learning facts; only denial of knowledge exists | Govt: facts support inference she was aware of a high probability and contrived not to learn details | Instruction proper; deliberate ignorance may be inferred from the record |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to possess 15+ unauthorized access devices | Maitre: evidence shows only that she lived with a burglar and house full of stolen goods, not knowing agreement | Govt: items in plain view, heat runs, participation in disposal, and repeated influx of stolen goods support knowing, voluntary agreement | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated identity theft (specific IDs) | Maitre: no proof she possessed the specific IDs or knew they belonged to real persons | Govt: IDs found in shoe-shaped chair in bedroom with gun/ammo and other stolen property; constructive possession and knowledge inferable | Evidence sufficient for aggravated-identity-theft convictions |
| Sentencing: loss calculation and role reduction | Maitre: not a major participant; many items (passports, SSNs, licenses) not necessarily access devices; challenges to loss total | Govt/District Ct: counted credit/debit cards, SSNs, driver’s licenses as access devices; assigned $500 per device; denied minor-role reduction | District Court’s findings not clearly erroneous; loss >= $554,500 supports guideline increase; no minor-role reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Myers, 972 F.2d 1566 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)
- Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir.) (district courts have wide discretion in instruction wording)
- United States v. Arias, 984 F.2d 1139 (11th Cir.) (reversal only for inaccurate or misleading jury charge)
- United States v. Steed, 548 F.3d 961 (11th Cir.) (deliberate ignorance treated as equivalent to knowledge)
- United States v. Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- United States v. Baldwin, 774 F.3d 711 (11th Cir.) (aggravated identity theft constructive-possession and knowledge principles)
- United States v. Jordi, 418 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for sentencing guidelines application)
- United States v. Patterson, 595 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir.) (district court must make findings to support loss calculation)
- United States v. Wright, 862 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.) (cannot rely on vague descriptions of personal identifying information for loss findings)
- United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349 (11th Cir.) (conspiracy participation can be proved by surrounding circumstantial acts)
- United States v. Hamaker, 455 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir.) (sentencing courts may consider acquitted or uncharged conduct)