United States v. Sienemah Gaye
902 F.3d 780
| 8th Cir. | 2018Background
- Three defendants (Gaye, Fillie, Sumoso) pleaded guilty to roles in an extensive Minneapolis–St. Paul bank‑fraud conspiracy that used counterfeit checks, insiders, recruiters, and over 500 "runners."
- The conspiracy ran from 2005–2013 (Gaye from 2005; Fillie and Sumoso from 2007) and involved more than 1,500 fraudulent transactions. Each defendant received multi‑year sentences and restitution orders.
- The district court held a consolidated evidentiary sentencing hearing and applied several Guidelines enhancements (loss, role, obstruction, sophisticated means) and reductions (acceptance of responsibility to varying degrees).
- Gaye challenged consideration of his proffer statements, an obstruction enhancement, loss, role and sophistication enhancements, denial of a third‑level acceptance reduction, and substantive reasonableness of his 144‑month sentence.
- Fillie challenged loss and victim counts, role and sophistication enhancements, criminal‑history scoring, the restitution amount (arguing the plea agreement set a lower figure), and substantive reasonableness of his 110‑month sentence plus statutory consecutive term.
- Sumoso challenged attribution of the full loss figure to him, arguing periods of non‑involvement and withdrawal while living outside the Twin Cities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of proffer statements at sentencing (Gaye) | Proffer agreement and USSG §1B1.8(a) barred use of his proffer statements to deny an acceptance reduction. | Government and court: proffer exception permits use to rebut arguments or representations at sentencing; Gaye denied facts in PSR. | Court may consider proffer statements to rebut Gaye’s affirmative denials; consideration was permitted under the agreement. |
| Obstruction enhancement under USSG §3C1.1 (Gaye) | Texts were innocuous encouragement, not corrupt persuasion; no intimidation. | Texts show attempt to influence a cooperating witness to avoid testifying; conscious wrongdoing. | Court did not clearly err: two‑level obstruction increase upheld. |
| Acceptance‑of‑responsibility third‑level reduction (Gaye) | Government had no valid basis to withhold the government motion for a third level. | Government legitimately opposed based on denials and obstruction; district court already granted two levels. | No entitlement to compel government to move; denial of third level affirmed. |
| Loss amount and relevant conduct (all three) | Each defendant argued loss should be limited to transactions they personally performed. | Court: in jointly undertaken activity, reasonably foreseeable co‑conspirator losses are attributable under §1B1.3. | Court properly attributed the government’s ~$770k loss figure as relevant conduct; enhancements affirmed. |
| Role enhancement (organizer/leader or manager) (Gaye, Fillie) | Defendants argued they were not leaders/supervisors at alleged levels. | Government relied on meetings, recruitment, direction, hosting hubs, coordination, and communications. | District court’s findings supported applying leader (Gaye) and manager (Fillie) adjustments; no clear error. |
| Sophisticated‑means enhancement (USSG §2B1.1) (Gaye, Fillie) | Conduct was garden‑variety check fraud (steal numbers, print checks, deposit) and not "sophisticated." | Scheme’s scale, coordination, repetition, and account/conduit use made it sufficiently sophisticated. | Enhancement proper given scale, coordination, and longevity of the scheme. |
| Restitution and plea‑agreement figure (Fillie) | Restitution should be limited to the plea agreement amount; court was bound or should not exceed it. | MVRA authorizes the court to order restitution to all victims of the conspiracy; plea stipulation not binding if repudiated. | Court could order full restitution of $770,551.08; plea figure not binding and Fillie repudiated it before sentencing. |
| Withdrawal from conspiracy / attribution during absence (Sumoso) | Periods living outside Twin Cities meant he withdrew and should not be liable for thereafter losses. | No affirmative withdrawal shown; merely ceasing activity is insufficient. | No clear evidence of affirmative withdrawal; full loss attribution upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Loesel, 728 F.3d 749 (Eighth Cir. 2013) (proffer‑use limits and exceptions under §1B1.8)
- United States v. Araujo, 622 F.3d 854 (Seventh Cir. 2010) (proffer and sentencing use to rebut defendant representations)
- United States v. Mann, 701 F.3d 274 (Eighth Cir. 2012) (consciousness of wrongdoing standard for corrupt persuasion/witness tampering)
- United States v. Hemsher, 893 F.3d 525 (Eighth Cir. 2018) (reasonableness presumption for guideline sentences; obstruction review)
- United States v. Spotted Elk, 548 F.3d 641 (Eighth Cir. 2008) (relevant‑conduct scope and withdrawal from conspiracy)
- United States v. Norwood, 774 F.3d 476 (Eighth Cir. 2014) (scope of "sophisticated means" enhancement)
- United States v. Laws, 819 F.3d 388 (Eighth Cir. 2016) (sophistication tied to repetition and coordination)
- United States v. Jenkins‑Watts, 574 F.3d 950 (Eighth Cir. 2009) (network size and coordination support enhancements)
- United States v. Quevedo, 654 F.3d 819 (Eighth Cir. 2011) (loss attribution under relevant conduct doctrine)
- United States v. Pierre, 870 F.3d 845 (Eighth Cir. 2017) (§3553(a)(6) disparities inquiry focuses on national, not intra‑case, disparities)