United States v. Theodore John Nelson, Jr.
676 F. App'x 614
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Theodore J. Nelson, Jr. and his son Steven Nelson were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371), willful failure to file income tax returns (26 U.S.C. § 7203) for 2006–2013, and obstructing administration of the internal revenue laws (26 U.S.C. § 7212(a)).
- District court sentenced Theodore to 70 months and Steven to 12 months + 1 day; ordered joint and several restitution to the IRS of $1,842,102.14.
- Evidence at the six-day trial included IRS agent testimony that the Nelsons operated sham trusts, used false TINs and false exempt claims, earned ample income but willfully failed to file returns, and took steps to hide income and impede IRS functions.
- Theodore raised sentence-reasonableness and pro se jurisdictional/authority claims in an Anders brief; Steven’s counsel (also Anders) challenged sufficiency of evidence, Guidelines calculations, and trial counsel effectiveness.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed the record, found the verdict supported by the evidence, upheld sentencing calculations (including tax-loss and sophisticated-means enhancement), and affirmed restitution and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of Theodore’s sentence | Theodore: within-Guidelines sentence was unreasonable given mitigators | Government: sentence was within properly calculated Guidelines and considered factors | Affirmed — within-Guidelines sentence not unreasonable |
| Sufficiency of evidence (Steven) | Steven: evidence insufficient to prove elements beyond reasonable doubt | Government: trial evidence (IRS agents, pattern of sham trusts, concealment) supports convictions | Affirmed — jury could rationally find all elements proven |
| Sentencing calculations & enhancements (tax loss, course of conduct, sophisticated means) | Nelsons: challenges to amount of tax loss, aggregated conduct, and sophisticated-means enhancement | Government: calculations supported by evidence and relevant-conduct rules | Affirmed — district court did not clearly err or abuse discretion |
| Ineffective assistance / jurisdictional/pro se challenges | Steven: trial counsel ineffective; Theodore: pro se challenges to government authority and court jurisdiction | Government: claims meritless or better pursued in § 2255 for ineffective assistance; jurisdictional claims baseless | Court: pro se jurisdictional claims rejected; ineffective-assistance claims deferred to § 2255 proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedure for appellate counsel to assert a case is frivolous)
- Bryant v. United States, 606 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (presumption of substantive reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences)
- Drefke v. United States, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983) (rejecting tax-protester jurisdictional arguments)
- Tensley v. United States, 334 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willfulness for failing to file; good-faith misunderstanding defense limited)
- Brooks v. United States, 174 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 1999) (steps showing lack of good-faith belief; dissociation from income)
- Noske v. United States, 117 F.3d 1053 (8th Cir. 1997) (upholding conspiracy convictions where sham entities hid tax liabilities)
- Wilson v. United States, 118 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 1997) (elements of § 7212(a) obstruction offense)
- Yagow v. United States, 953 F.2d 423 (8th Cir. 1992) (definition of "corruptly" to include effort to secure unlawful financial advantage)
- Aldridge v. United States, 561 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2009) (tax-loss calculation and relevant-conduct principles)
- Jones v. United States, 778 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2015) (application of sophisticated-scheme enhancement)
- Frazier v. United States, 651 F.3d 899 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for restitution calculations)
- Davies v. United States, 583 F.3d 1081 (8th Cir. 2009) (ineffective-assistance claims often resolved in § 2255 proceedings)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate court’s independent review when counsel seeks to withdraw)