United States v. Nelson Cristiano Machado, Jr., 886 F.3d 1070

Background

Machado, a Brazilian national and Florida pastor, was indicted in 2010 on three counts of wire fraud for obtaining three mortgage loans (totaling ~$739,900) in 2005 by allegedly submitting false loan applications and supporting documents.
He returned to Brazil in late 2009 and made several brief U.S. visits (2010, 2014–15, 2016); he was arrested in January 2016 while entering the U.S. on the outstanding 2010 indictment.
At closings for the charged properties, Machado signed numerous English-language documents (occupancy affidavits, HUD‑1s, Truth in Lending disclosures) that mirrored the allegedly false loan applications; closing officers testified their practices required translation for non‑English speakers.
A jury convicted Machado on all three wire fraud counts after a 2016 trial; the district court sentenced him to 36 months’ imprisonment (within the advisory Guidelines range), and Machado appealed.
On appeal, Machado challenged: (1) denial of a speedy‑trial dismissal based on pre‑arrest delay (2010–2016); (2) sufficiency of evidence as to intent/knowledge; (3) exclusion of a 2009 indictment of the mortgage‑broker agent (Monteiro) as defense evidence; and (4) denial of personal allocution at sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy‑trial violation (delay from 2010 indictment to 2016 arrest)	Government failed to locate Machado while he was in Brazil and the delay presumptively prejudiced him	Government acted diligently (NCIC entry, database checks, attempts at last known addresses and church contacts); delay not deliberate	No violation; district court findings that government acted in good faith and Machado failed to show actual prejudice affirmed
Sufficiency of evidence (intent to defraud for wire fraud)	Machado lacked culpable knowledge because he spoke little English and brokers altered/forged applications without his knowledge	Signed multiple closing documents mirroring false applications, made deposits, had spouse present who spoke English, and profited from the loans — sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent	Convictions affirmed; reasonable jury could infer intent from the signed closings, disclosures, and circumstantial evidence
Exclusion of Monteiro’s 2009 indictment (right to present defense)	Indictment would show mortgage broker Monteiro committed similar frauds, supporting defense that Monteiro, not Machado, caused false applications	Indictment concerned different transactions, parties, and time frame; it was untried and too attenuated and confusing to be relevant	No abuse of discretion; indictment was not relevant to dispositive issues and could have confused jury; exclusion did not violate right to present a defense
Right to allocution at sentencing	Machado contends sentencing court failed to address him personally and obtain allocution despite interpreter availability	Government concedes error; district court asked counsel rather than addressing Machado directly	Plain error; right to allocution violated, prejudice presumed, sentence vacated and case remanded for allocution and resentencing

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four‑factor speedy‑trial test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay and presumption of evidentiary prejudice over time)
United States v. Bagga, 782 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir.) (government need only diligent, good‑faith efforts to locate absent defendant)
United States v. Perez, 661 F.3d 568 (11th Cir.) (right to personal allocution; counsel cannot substitute for defendant)
United States v. Hurn, 368 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir.) (limits on excluding defense evidence and when exclusion violates right to present a defense)
United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581 (11th Cir.) (elements and proof of wire fraud)
United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.) (intent to defraud may be inferred from conduct and circumstantial evidence)
United States v. Naranjo, 634 F.3d 1198 (11th Cir.) (profit from scheme as circumstantial evidence of intent)