United States v. Scott
667 F. App'x 702
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Lauren Elizabeth Scott raised over $4 million from investors for purported Wyoming wind farms to be developed by Mountain State Power, a shell company.
- Scott pled guilty to money-laundering and fraud and was sentenced to 57 months’ imprisonment.
- Post-conviction, Scott filed a § 2255 motion (denied) and later sought appointment of a receiver for Mountain State Power and moved to dismiss the indictment.
- The district court denied the receiver motion because Mountain State Power had no remaining assets (they had been seized and forfeited).
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss as untimely because it was filed after Scott’s conviction and sentence were final (Rule 12 timing).
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed both denials and denied Scott’s request to proceed on appeal ifp as moot, requiring payment of filing fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a receiver should be appointed for Mountain State Power | Scott: a receiver should manage the company’s assets for investors/victims and provide an accounting | Govt/District: company has no assets to manage (seized/forfeited); receiver would not remedy alleged deficiencies | Denied — no error; no assets exist that a receiver could manage |
| Whether the indictment should be dismissed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12 | Scott: grand jury lacked jurisdiction (expired term) and government presented false evidence | Govt/District: Rule 12 motion is untimely because case was no longer pending after conviction and direct review | Denied — motion untimely when filed after conviction and finality; §2255 is proper remedy for collateral challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Valadez–Camarena, 402 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2005) (Rule 12 motion untimely when case no longer pending after judgment and appeals)
- United States v. Jones, [citation="510 F. App'x 772"] (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (post-judgment Rule 12 motion untimely)
- United States v. Carranza-Hurtado, [citation="456 F. App'x 745"] (10th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (Rule 12 motion untimely when filed long after conviction and sentence final)