United States v. Stewart
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3611
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Indictment returned Sept. 22, 2011, charging Stewart with conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 based on a sham marriage to obtain immigration benefits for FN.
- Indictment alleged overt acts: marriage on Mar. 29, 2005; documents to support cohabitation (mid-2005); USCIS interview Oct. 7, 2005; Form I-751 signed Jun. 22, 2007.
- Stewart argued the conspiracy ended when FN obtained conditional LPR status on Oct. 7, 2005, making the 2007 I-751 act beyond the conspiracy’s scope.
- District court denied motion to dismiss; trial was a bench proceeding on stipulated facts; Stewart was convicted as charged.
- Court reviews whether the I-751 filing was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy and whether the indictment was timely under a five-year limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment was timely under the five-year limit | Government contends overt act in 2007 within period. | Stewart argues conspiracy ended in 2005; I-751 not within period. | Indictment timely; overt act in 2007 within limitations. |
| Whether Form I-751 filing was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy | I-751 advanced the conspiracy objective to obtain immigration status for FN. | I-751 not in furtherance if status change completed in 2005. | I-751 filing was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. |
| Scope of the conspiratorial agreement and applicability of Roshko authorities | Agreement encompassed removal of conditions and subsequent steps; not limited to initial status. | Roshko limits prosecution to acts within period that furthered a finite object. | Roshko-based arguments not controlling; conspiracy scope includes removal-of-conditions step. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grunewald v. United States, 353 F.2d 391 (U.S. (1957)) (overt-act requirement depends on scope of conspiracy)
- Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211 (U.S. (1946)) (timeliness begins with last overt act in furtherance)
- United States v. Ferris, 807 F.2d 269 (1st Cir. 1986) (gov't bears burden to prove indictment within period)
- United States v. Upton, 559 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2009) (determining the contours of the conspiracy is a factual matter for the jury)
- Gallimore v. Attorney Gen., 619 F.3d 216 (3d Cir. 2010) (treatment of conditional LPR status in removal-process context)
- Ramos Algarin, 584 F.2d 562 (1st Cir. 1978) (sham-marriage act and residence-eligibility implications)
- United States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137 (3d Cir. 2008) (indictment timing and overt act considerations)
- United States v. Upton, 559 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2009) (confirms jury-based determinations on conspiracy scope)
- Roshko I, 969 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1992) (conspiracy limitations depending on scope (Second Circuit))