United States v. Steven Maxwell, 778 F.3d 719

January 2012 superseding indictment charged twelve defendants with conspiracy to commit bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 & 1349, and Counts 2-21 plus Counts 22-34 alleged related offenses.
Eight defendants pleaded guilty; Maxwell and Royals testified for the government at trial; seven appeals were consolidated, including Burks, Powell, Allen, Hamilton, Maxwell, Royals, and Moore.
Trial evidence showed a large, evolving conspiracy with leaders, recruiters, information providers, and check cashers using counterfeit IDs and forged checks to defraud banks and retailers, including TeleCheck-related schemes and split deposits.
Key players included Maxwell, Royals, Moore, Powell, Allen, Hamilton, and Burks; the scheme involved dozens of banks, retailers, and identity theft techniques across Minnesota and North Dakota.
Moore challenged suppression of evidence from a May 2009 warrant search; the court ultimately addressed arguments about standing, Franks implications, and admissibility of evidence tying Moore to Apartment 234.
The district court’s judgments and sentences for seven defendants were affirmed, including various enhancements, loss calculations, and apportionments of fraud victims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for Count 1	Burks/ Powell/ Allen/ Hamilton claim insufficient proof of conspiracy participation.	Burks/ Powell/ Allen/ Hamilton contend lack of intent or proper conspiracy theory.	Evidence sufficient to prove knowing participation in bank fraud conspiracy.
Plain error in jury instruction on multiple theories	Powell/ Allen argue instruction allowed nonunanimous verdicts across counts.	No plain error; juries were instructed to consider each crime separately and must be unanimous.	No reversible plain error; instruction proper given separate verdict requirement.
Moore suppression and standing under Franks	Moore lacked standing; warrant affidavit contained false statements to obtain probable cause.	Moore had standing; Franks hearing should have been held if substantial preliminary showing existed.	District court not clearly erroneous on standing; no Franks hearing required; suppression affirmed on different grounds.
Sentencing: loss, victims, and due process	Challenge to calculations and parity among co-defendants; argues procedural or substantive error.	Argues the district court erred in loss/ victims computation and in balancing § 3553(a) factors.	District court properly calculated loss and victims; sentences within discretion and supported by § 3553(a).

Honarvar, 477 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 2007) (sufficiency review; de novo standard; view evidence in light for verdict)
Santisteban, 501 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 2007) (single vs multiple conspiracy; non-reversible error when evidence supports one conspiracy)
Staples, 435 F.3d 860 (8th Cir.) (principal vs aiding-and-abetting liability; jury instructions on liability forms)
Hodge, 594 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2010) (forensic foreseeability; sentencing calculations after incarceration)
Krzyzaniak, 702 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2013) (plea-based loss attribution; breadth of appeal limits)
Theimer, 557 F.3d 576 (8th Cir. 2009) (sentencing findings may rely on trial evidence, not PSR)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (required evidentiary hearing for falsities in warrant affidavits)
Loughrin v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2384 (2014) (statutory interpretation of § 1344(2) post-approval)