United States v. Stergios
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20985
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Stergios was convicted in 2010 on two counts of bank fraud and one count of mail fraud for schemes in 2009–2010.
- He challenged whether MB & T and USAA were FDIC insured at the time of the offenses, arguing insufficient proof.
- The government offered bank testimony plus FDIC certificates with affidavits to prove insurance.
- The government introduced evidence that USAA mailed debit/ATM cards to Stergios, and that he used them to perpetrate frauds.
- At sentencing, the district court included a $1.4 million counterfeit check as intended loss, and imposed internet-restriction conditions during supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDIC insurance sufficiency | Stergios argues insurance proof was insufficient | Stergios argues certificates/affidavits insufficient | Evidence supported FDIC insurance for the banks |
| Use of the mails | Stergios contends no proof of mailing elements | Stergios argues cards mailed by bank not shown to be used in fraud | Reasonable foreseeability and bank practice showed mails used in furtherance |
| Special conditions of release | Stergios argues internet restrictions overly broad | Stergios contends restrictions exceed necessary deprivation | Special conditions reasonably related and not an abuse of discretion |
| Inclusion of the $1.4 million check | Stergios contends not a loss, not intended loss | Stergios argues bipolar disorder explains conduct; not loss | District court's loss calculation not clearly erroneous; check included as intended conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ayewoh, 627 F.3d 914 (1st Cir. 2010) (FDIC-insurance proof can support liability)
- United States v. Vachon, 869 F.2d 653 (1st Cir. 1989) (bank employee testimony can prove FDIC status)
- Innarilli v. United States, 524 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 2008) (loss analysis focuses on objective reasonable expectation)
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (Supreme Court, 1989) (mail fraud 'furtherance' is broad; need not be essential element)
- United States v. Perazza-Mercado, 553 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2009) (special-release conditions must be tied to goals and reasonable)