United States v. Qadir Shabazz
887 F.3d 1204
11th Cir.2018Background
- Qadir Shabazz founded and funded “Indigent Inmate,” a nonprofit that solicited prisoners’ personal identifying information and—according to the government—used that information to file fraudulent federal and state tax returns and collect refunds.
- Investigators executed search warrants at Shabazz’s residence and Indigent Inmate headquarters; agents seized applications, computers, and a debit card for a fraudulently funded account found in a wallet taken from pants at Shabazz’s direction.
- Pennsylvania and federal investigators linked thousands of fraudulent returns to a set of 15 common addresses, several of which were leased or otherwise connected to Shabazz or his associates.
- Shabazz was arrested, interviewed (agents testified they gave Miranda warnings), tried, and convicted on counts including conspiracy to defraud the United States, multiple counts of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, and theft of government funds.
- The district court admitted (over defense objections) evidence seized from the wallet, Shabazz’s post-arrest statements, uncharged fraudulent returns, and photographs of Shabazz with large amounts of cash; it instructed the jury on Pinkerton liability.
- At sentencing the court applied a 4-level leadership enhancement, calculated intended loss based on returns using the 15 common addresses, and sentenced Shabazz to 277 months (below Guidelines range); Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Shabazz’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of wallet contents seized at residence | Warrant affidavit lacked probable cause; wallet outside scope; search was an impermissible Terry frisk | Affidavit corroborated informant; warrant listed items (debit cards, IDs) and pants pockets were reasonable places to search | Affirmed: probable cause and scope proper; seizure permissible |
| Admissibility of post-arrest statements (Miranda) | Agents did not give Miranda warnings; statements should be suppressed | Agents credibly testified they warned and obtained waiver; credibility question for district court | Affirmed: district court credited agents’ testimony; no clear error |
| Admission of uncharged returns and photos of cash | Uncharged returns and cash photos were prejudicial and impermissible character evidence | Uncharged returns were intrinsic to the charged scheme; photos relevant to unexplained wealth | Affirmed: uncharged returns inextricably intertwined; photos probative and not unduly prejudicial |
| Forcing/allowing appearance in jail clothes | Court violated right by letting jury see him in prison garb and then refusing to allow change | Defendant waived right by declining offer to change; strategic choice; limiting instruction given | Affirmed: waiver; no reversible error; limiting instruction presumed followed |
| Jury instruction on Pinkerton liability | Instruction improper because insufficient evidence of conspiracy or advance knowledge; relieved government burden | Evidence supported conspiracy and foreseeable substantive offenses; instruction followed pattern language | Affirmed: Pinkerton instruction appropriate; no burden-shifting |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and aggravated identity theft | Government failed to prove he joined conspiracy or knew identifiers belonged to real, nonconsenting people | Indigent Inmate applications, recovered debit cards, connections to addresses, and testimony supported knowledge and membership | Affirmed: ample circumstantial evidence supports convictions |
| Sentencing: role enhancement and loss calculation | Court erred in applying 4-level organizer enhancement and attributing loss based on all common-address returns | Evidence showed Shabazz organized/funded operations, controlled addresses/participants; loss estimation method consistent with precedent | Affirmed: role enhancement and loss findings not clearly erroneous; sentence reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (rule on conspirator vicarious liability)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warning requirement)
- United States v. Ford, 784 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir.) (uncharged tax-return evidence intrinsic to scheme)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (scope of a lawful search of premises)
- United States v. Graham, 643 F.3d 885 (11th Cir.) (defendant’s choice to wear jail clothes and waiver principles)
- United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir.) (Pinkerton and foreseeability)