United States v. Robey
831 F.3d 857
7th Cir.2016Background
- Robey operated a modern-day chop shop: stealing cars, altering VINs, and selling them with counterfeit documents using computer equipment; the operation spanned 2009–2011 with later activity supporting the scheme.
- Robey and associates used VIN alterations and counterfeit titles, insurance cards, sales contracts, and temporary plates created with a computer, scanner, printer, and software.
- Robey was arrested December 6, 2011, and a 25-count indictment was returned February 23, 2012, charging conspiracy, trafficking, counterfeit securities, and document fraud.
- During pre-indictment and pre-trial periods, Robey and the government sought multiple ends-of-justice continuances and Robey pursued motion practice, new counsel, and plea negotiations; the government also sought a continuance.
- On December 29, 2014, the government moved to dismiss 19 of the 25 counts, leaving 6 counts (4 trafficking in altered VINs and 2 counterfeit securities) for trial; Robey’s trial occurred February 10–12, 2015; he was convicted on all six counts.
- At sentencing, the court applied a 14-point increase for relevant conduct, adding ten uncharged vehicles to the four charged, resulting in a guideline range of 110–137 months and a within-range sentence of 110 months plus three years of supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy trial rights under STA and Sixth Amendment | Robey contends 79 pre-indictment and 1076 pre-trial days violated speedy-trial clocks | Robey argues delays were not properly excluded or justified | No violation; delays properly excluded or justified; no Sixth Amendment violation |
| Indictment amendment by dismissing counts | Dismissal of 19 of 25 counts broadened the indictment or violated grand jury protections | Narrowing the indictment did not constitute impermissible amendment | Not an impermissible amendment; narrowing allowed by Miller and Soskin |
| Relevant conduct at sentencing | Ten uncharged vehicles should be included as relevant conduct | Insufficient connection to charged offenses to warrant inclusion | District court did not abuse discretion; there was a common scheme or plan and sufficient connection |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130 (U.S. 1985) (narrowing an indictment may be permissible; does not deprive defendant of rights when charged offenses remain)
- United States v. Soskin, 100 F.3d 1377 (7th Cir. 1996) (grand jury requirement not violated by narrowed indictment where allowed by precedent)
- United States v. Perez, 673 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain-error review for unpreserved issues; standard applied)
- O’Connor v. United States, 656 F.3d 630 (7th Cir. 2011) (ends-of-justice exclusions; framework for reviewing delay)
- United States v. Graffia, 120 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 1997) (modified indictments presented to petit jury without resubmission to grand jury)
- United States v. Crockett, 979 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1992) (broadened indictments not permitted; narrowing is acceptable)
- United States v. Hill, 683 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2012) (relevant conduct and loss calculation under §2B1.1)
- United States v. Baines, 777 F.3d 959 (7th Cir. 2015) (shared conduct and applying §1B1.3 for relevant conduct)