United States v. Seng Xiong, 914 F.3d 1154

Seng Xiong, a Hmong community leader, solicited roughly $1.7 million from supporters (mid-2014–early 2016) claiming he was working with U.S. and U.N. officials to establish a Hmong homeland ("Hmong Tebchaws").
Xiong promoted tiers of donor benefits, provided a bank account for deposits, and made final claims in a September 2015 video promising imminent relocation; Wells Fargo froze his account and law enforcement investigated.
Arrested and charged with mail and wire fraud, Xiong spent about $169,000 on personal expenses; he was convicted by a jury on both counts.
Pretrial, the court required Rule 12.3 disclosures for any perceived government-authority defenses (public authority, entrapment by estoppel, innocent intent); Xiong failed to timely proffer evidence and the court excluded the first two defenses.
At a pretrial hearing the court questioned Xiong (initially off the record, then under oath) about alleged contacts with government officials; Xiong produced no corroborating evidence and ultimately pursued only an innocent intent defense at trial.
At sentencing the court applied Guidelines enhancements for loss amount, mass marketing, and vulnerable victims, producing a 70–87 month range and an 87-month sentence plus restitution; Xiong appealed.

Issue	Xiong's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by requiring proof of actual government authority to present perceived-government-authority defenses	Court applied too strict a standard and prevented him from presenting those defenses	Xiong failed to timely proffer and offered no evidence of even apparent authority	No reversible error; any error harmless because Xiong offered no evidence to meet even an apparent-authority standard
Whether direct pretrial questioning by the judge violated the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination	Court questioning compelled self-incriminating testimony	Pretrial statements were outside juried trial and were not used against him at trial	No violation; statements were made outside the jury and not admitted as trial testimony
Whether exclusion of evidence or requirement of actual authority violated Sixth Amendment compulsory process	Exclusion prevented him from presenting material witnesses and testimony	Xiong did not identify witnesses or show proffered testimony was material	No violation; Xiong failed to identify witnesses or establish materiality
Whether the sentence was procedurally or substantively unreasonable	Sentence disparate and insufficiently justified; compared to other fraud sentences (e.g., Hecker)	Court considered relevant factors, including victim vulnerability and lies; district courts have discretion	Sentence affirmed as reasonable and adequately explained

United States v. Achter, 52 F.3d 753 (8th Cir. 1995) (defines public authority and entrapment-by-estoppel defenses)
United States v. Benning, 248 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming preclusion of insufficiently supported entrapment-by-estoppel defense)
United States v. Baptista-Rodriguez, 17 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir. 1994) (discussing innocent intent and public-authority concepts)
United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) (discussing when pretrial questioning implicates Fifth Amendment rights)
Perry v. Lockhart, 871 F.2d 1384 (8th Cir. 1989) (Sixth Amendment compulsory-process requires showing testimony is favorable and material)
Emery v. Hunt, 272 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Walker v. Kane, 885 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2018) (plain-error review standard when appellate preservation lacking)
United States v. Soliz, 857 F.3d 781 (8th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for sentencing reasonableness)
United States v. Sariles, 645 F.3d 315 (5th Cir. 2011) (requires actual authority for public-authority defense)
United States v. Fulcher, 250 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 2001) (same)
United States v. Pitt, 193 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 1999) (same)
United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984) (same)