United States v. Randy Beltramea
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7480
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- Defendant Randy Beltramea pleaded guilty to multiple fraud, money‑laundering, false‑statement, aggravated identity‑theft, and tax‑evasion counts from a second superseding indictment.
- Guideline calculation: base range 63–78 months (offense level 26, CHC I); district court granted two upward departures (U.S.S.G. §4A1.3 and §5K2.21) raising CHC to II and adjusted range to 70–87 months, then added a mandatory consecutive 24 months for aggravated identity theft, yielding a total sentence of 111 months plus 5 years supervised release.
- At sentencing the district court stated that even if the upward departures were erroneous, it would have imposed the same sentence by varying under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).
- The government sought criminal forfeiture of numerous assets (three rental properties, multiple Castlerock Estates parcels, and specified cash proceeds) and the district court entered a preliminary forfeiture order; counsel did not timely object to forfeiture.
- On appeal Beltramea challenged (1) the district court’s upward departure under U.S.S.G. §4A1.3 and (2) the forfeiture order, arguing lack of factual nexus between certain properties (the three rental properties and some undeveloped Castlerock lots) and offenses of conviction and improper double/triple counting of proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Upward departure under U.S.S.G. §4A1.3 | Gov: evidence (investors' default judgment, NASD and state actions, attorney Fagan testimony) showed criminal history understated and likelihood to recidivate | Beltramea: Fagan's testimony insufficient; §4A1.3(a)(2) list is exclusive and evidence mixed (fraud vs. non‑fraud) | Court: Affirmed departure; §4A1.3(a)(2) is not exhaustive and record supported recidivism finding; harmless even if error because §3553(a) variance would yield same sentence |
| Forfeiture—nexus for rental properties | Gov: preliminary forfeiture order and counsel signature constituted consent/waiver and established nexus | Beltramea: no factual proof in record tying the three rental properties to convicted offenses; cannot waive the court’s duty to find nexus | Court: Reversed forfeiture as to these properties—plain error; district court has independent duty to find nexus and gov't produced no facts showing traceability |
| Forfeiture—nexus for undeveloped Castlerock lots and counting of proceeds | Gov: argued assets traceable to crimes and sought grouping of proceeds | Beltramea: record lacks nexus for certain undeveloped lots and government double/triple counted proceeds | Court: Found record insufficient to show nexus for some undeveloped lots; vacated and remanded forfeiture order for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (forfeiture requires factual nexus; court must not simply accept a defendant’s un‑substantiated consent)
- United States v. Outlaw, 720 F.3d 990 (8th Cir. 2013) (§4A1.3(a)(2) list is not exhaustive; court may consider other reliable information)
- United States v. Porter, 439 F.3d 845 (8th Cir. 2006) (district court may consider likelihood of future offenses when departing under §4A1.3)
- United States v. Johnson, 648 F.3d 940 (8th Cir. 2011) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of upward departures)
- United States v. Adetiloye, 716 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for forfeiture findings: factual findings for clear error; legal questions de novo)
- United States v. Marquez, 685 F.3d 501 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain‑error standard where counsel fails to timely object to forfeiture)
- United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2012) (harmless‑error analysis when sentencing court states it would impose same sentence under §3553(a))