United States v. Nyle Churchwell, 807 F.3d 107

Churchwell, Houston Passport Agency adjudication manager, was convicted on Counts 2 and 4 for aiding and abetting false statements in passport applications.
He was acquitted on Counts 1 and 3 and received an above-Guidelines sentence of 42 months, concurrent for both counts.
The C.F./M.V. case involved a minor’s passport with a signature by a non-present parent and falsified paternal consent.
The Gardner/Law case involved a torn Texas ID submitted as identification, with Churchwell enhancing or certifying the application despite concerns.
Churchwell admitted knowing the applicants but claimed he did not know the applications were fraudulent; trial showed evidence of deliberate ignorance.
On appeal, Churchwell challenged sufficiency of the evidence, lay testimony, closing argument comments, and the reasonableness of the above-Guidelines sentence; the court AFFIRMED the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Counts 2 and 4	Churchwell argues evidence insufficient to prove willful false statements.	Churchwell contends he lacked knowledge of fraud.	Evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Lay opinion testimony admissibility	Clark’s lay opinion about Churchwell’s knowledge was improper.	Testimony aided jury understanding and was admissible under Rule 701.	District court’s admission was not reversible error; harmless.
Prosecutor’s closing argument comments	Closing argument included improper, non-record evidence and prejudice.	Arguments were not exploitative and were tied to evidence; any error was harmless.	Plain error not established; no reversible prejudice.
Above-Guidelines sentence reasonableness	Sentence beyond Guidelines was not justified.	Variance justified by abuse of trust, impact on passport system, and 3553(a) factors.	Sentence procedurally proper and substantively reasonable.

United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849 (4th Cir. 1996) (definition of aiding and abetting requires knowledge and participation in the venture)
United States v. Demmitt, 706 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2013) (deliberate ignorance standard for knowledge in conspiracy cases)
United States v. Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2010) (prosecutor closing remarks may be allowed if grounded in record and not reversible error)
United States v. Vaccaro, 115 F.3d 1211 (5th Cir. 1997) (considering whether closing argument had foundation in record; harmless if supported by evidence)
United States v. Cruz-Rea, 626 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2010) (rebuts and closing argument considerations relevant to prejudice)
United States v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105 (5th Cir. 2012) (harmlessness of evidentiary error evaluated by totality of evidence)