United States v. Troy Allen Huston
744 F.3d 589
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- Huston and Anderson pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud by interstate wire, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343.
- Huston was a Prestige Mortgage branch manager; Anderson was a Prestige Mortgage loan officer.
- Conspirators recruited straw buyers, used inflated appraisals, and created two entities to bill and distribute loan proceeds and kickbacks.
- Inflated loans neared $10 million; lender losses totaled $4,889,421.
- District court sentenced Huston to 57 months (bottom of advisory range) and Anderson to 60 months (statutory max).
- Appellants challenged the two-level sophisticated means enhancement and argued substantive unreasonableness; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sophisticated means enhancement allowed? | Huston/Anderson: garden-variety fraud, no sophistication | Huston/Anderson: enhancement overreach for simple fraud | Enhancement affirmed; district court did not clearly err. |
| Was loss amount properly determined? | Huston: disputed amount; sought downward variance | Huston withdrew loss challenge for guidelines purposes | Waiver of loss-amount challenge; no reversible error. |
| Substantive reasonableness of sentences? | Disparity with similar records; need for mitigating factors | Mitigating factors not adequately weighed; request for shorter sentences | Within-range sentences presumptively reasonable; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Court’s weighing of 3553(a) factors? | Court failed to accord mitigating factors proper weight | Court properly weighed factors; broad latitude | No abuse of discretion; court’s weighing was permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Septon, 557 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2009) (hiding transactions with fictitious entities indicates sophisticated means)
- United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338 (8th Cir. 2011) (repetitive, coordinated conduct can qualify as sophisticated)
- United States v. Calhoun, 721 F.3d 596 (8th Cir. 2013) (sophisticated means finding supported by precedent)
- United States v. Brooks, 174 F.3d 950 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing sophisticated-means finding (clear error))
- United States v. Hunt, 25 F.3d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (discusses sophistication standard)
- United States v. Mader, 654 F.3d 794 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc reaffirmation on conflicting panel opinions)