424 F. App'x 881
11th Cir.2011Background
- Twigg was convicted in the district court of three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud.
- Twigg challenged (1) Batson v. Kentucky claim, (2) the jury instruction on deliberate ignorance, and (3) the district court’s findings on loss amount and number of victims.
- The district court denied Twigg’s Batson objection, finding race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes and deeming the objection unwarranted.
- The district court instructed the jury on deliberate ignorance consistent with circuit precedent and case law.
- At sentencing, the district court attributed $2 million in loss and 55 victims based on emails, trial testimony, and PSR material, applying a preponderance standard to disputed facts.
- Twigg argues Bernardine and related authorities require different proof, but the court upheld the district court’s factual determinations and overall sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson eligibility | Twigg argues discrimination invalidates strikes. | United States contends no prima facie showing; race-neutral reasons shown. | Batson objection affirmed denied; reasons race-neutral. |
| Deliberate ignorance instruction | Twigg challenges correctness of instruction. | United States maintains instruction accurately states standard. | Instruction proper and consistent with law. |
| Loss amount and victims | Twigg contests calculated loss and victim count. | United States supports district court findings based on trial and PSI. | Findings upheld; sentence reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980 (11th Cir. 2008) (prima facie Batson showing required; district court's ruling reviewed)
- Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (U.S. 2006) (peremptory strike credibility and race-neutral reasons reviewed)
- Barfield v. Orange Cnty., 911 F.2d 644 (11th Cir. 1990) (race-neutral basis for removal of jurors)
- Edouard v. United States, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (consideration of similar-situated white jurors; credibility deference)
- Hristov v. United States, 466 F.3d 949 (11th Cir. 2006) (deliberate ignorance defined)
- Rivera v. United States, 944 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir. 1991) (deliberate ignorance framework)
- Ndiaye v. United States, 434 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2006) (sentencing evidence may include trial and PSI)
- Polar v. United States, 369 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2004) (basis for sentencing findings)
- Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193 (U.S. 1992) (standard for sentencing calculations; harmless error)
- Bernardine v. United States, 73 F.3d 1078 (11th Cir. 1996) (evidentiary sufficiency at sentencing)
- Tampas v. United States, 493 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2007) (harmless error in sentencing calculations)