United States v. Smiley

PIERSOL, District Judge. pleading guilty After to mail fraud and taxes, pay failure to over federal Defen- Appellant Angela Smiley dant and originally im- sentenced 36 months of prisonment. days Seven after originally sentenced the Government moved to contending vacate her improperly failed to iden- tify for United States Probation an inter- holding est she was a condominium in Florida. The district court vacated the eventually sentence and sentenced seventy-two imprison- months of ment and ordered restitution $674,691.41. appeal Smiley amount of On Piersol, Dakota, sitting by designation. 1. The Honorable L. Lawrence Judge States District for the District of South by signing lacked the Statements as well as releases the district court contends that concerning financial information. authority to vacate her sentence Smiley also chal- resentence her. Prior the Government of restitution ordered lenges the amount 3664(d)(5) pursuant moved to 18 U.S.C. court. We reverse the dis- by the district to extend the date for final determination Smiley’s origi- vacating order trict court’s restitution to no that days of later and the district court’s resen- nal sentence following sentencing date. The district Smiley affirm the district tencing granted January of but court this motion. On 2007, Smiley appeared for with court’s order of restitution. objections

no to the factual statements or Background I. application sentencing guidelines of to the presentence report. facts in the The dis- Smiley Appellant Angela and Defendant trict court found total offense level of 20 Payroll president of American history category and a criminal of with (APS). offered Service APS business range an incarceration to 41 of 33 months. payroll payroll and tax services clients Smiley The district court sentenced con- of preparation which included the IRS current terms 36 months. of the transmission of federal tax forms and 26, 2007, January On a week after the Smiley’s At direction APS draft- deposits. original sentencing, the Government filed a directly ed funds from its business clients’ Smiley’s motion to vacate sentence. In the purpose paying of its bank accounts for motion to vacate the Government contend- liabilities, federal tax APS business clients’ Smiley ed that when was interviewed pay numerous occasions failed to but on 16, 2006, Smiley Probation on November federal tax liabilities. Instead the clients’ failed to disclose an interest she held in a IRS, Smiley the funds to the forwarding of condominium2 in Florida. The Govern- pay employees’ used the funds to APS’ that a notice of ment further asserted fore- payroll operating expenses, pay and and to property closure had been served on this husband, salary pay her her own and 26, 2006, that a on October and foreclosure Smiley an employee. who was not APS 12, 2007, February for sale was scheduled made numerous false statements to APS Smiley pay her husband fail to should clients to conceal and further her business off the loan balance time. scheme. addition, represented that the motion Smi- 1, 2006, Smiley November waived On $44,000 membership ley purchased guilty to a two- pleaded indictment and golf in a club in with the condo- connection count information for mail fraud and fail- minium. It later revealed that pay ure to over federal taxes for the time membership golf club was terminat- it payments ed there were no made on January through September frame of of 2006. after October agreement recommended plea 2004. The plea a final level of 20. The total offense 26, 2007, the date that January On same required Smiley also to truth- agreement filed, the district the motion to vacate was fully complete information to the provide Vacating an Sentence. court entered Order (Probation) Probation office vacating United States The order the sentence refer- R. Cr. P. Flow enced clear error under by completing Net Worth and Cash 35(a) provides: days Agent 3. Fed. R. Cr. P. "Within Special 2. A with the Internal Revenue Service, Division, may sentencing, Criminal later testified correct a sen- after the court arithmetical, was a time share. the condominium from techni- tence resulted that she and her husband held later testified cal, or other clear error.” property. one-eighth fractional interest in the vacating Smiley’s original nancial to a in which as the basis Statements bank required Smiley also sentence. This order asserted individual net worth and accurate statement provide $2,574,000. 9, 2007, true April of On the dis- to the States Proba- of her assets enjoined Smiley, trict court and her hus- prepare a tion Office and for Probation to band, mother, father and father-in-law Report. Investigation revised Presentence affecting availability from or value of Smiley’s individually jointly-held or prop- dis- subsequent After made the erty property, seeking or marital without assets, the Government chal- closure prior approval from the district court. accuracy lenged completeness Smiley’s The district court also revoked information, and the finding Smiley bond after that had misled fur- granted the Government’s motion for 2007, February 23, regard Probation with finding. ther fact On existence 1) 27, 2007, the district court ordered Probation to: April and location of assets. On inventory appraisal obtain an and of Smi- the district court ordered Probation to ley’s personal possession, including home storage search a container rented Smi- furnishings and vehicles owned ti- and/or ley and her report husband and to 2) Smiley; tled to obtain valuation of Smi- storage contents of the container to the 3) ley’s companies; husband’s a obtain 20, 2007, July On Court. years minimum of two of bank statements appraisal Smiley’s court ordered an every personal from each and and business personal residence. 4) husband; Smiley account of and her 14, 2007, July Smiley On to va- moved a listing obtain detailed of assets trans- cate sentencing hearing which was by Smiley ferred her husband from and/or 16, 2007, July ground scheduled for on the appearance the date of her initial of No- jurisdiction that the district court lacked 1, vember proceed seven-day period since the to cor- 15, 2007, Government, On March in rect a forth in sentence set Fed. R. Cr. P. injunction seeking pursuant to the All expired. 23, 2007, August On the Act, 1651(a), Writs 28 U.S.C. contended hearing on the motion to vacate the sen- Monthly that the three Net Worth and tencing hearing the district court clarified Flow completed by Cash Statements Smi- that it proceeding was not under R. ley on November and those P. proceeding but had been on the Cr. completed original sentencing after inherent of the court to determine accurately failed to and completely dis- whether fraud had been committed on the close assets. alleged The Government court at the time of the that in conducting inventory Probation its any and intended to vacate sentence if Smiley of the home located undisclosed such fraud had been committed. including assets a 1969 classic GTO vehi- Smiley appeared for resentencing on inventory cle.4 The also located financial August August 28 and 2007. The dis- documents from the summer of 2006 indi- trict court proceed- announced that it was cating Smiley that had transferred more ing authority “under the $851,000 Court’s inherent than satisfy stocks to bank debts, to determine whether or not the transferring contract a business Smiley’s Smiley’s imposed from father-in-law to sentence on Ms.

husband, and April product 2006 Personal Fi- of fraud on the court.” The district ley’s 4. The many years. was titled in the name of Smi- vehicle husband for ley’s father-in-law but had been used Smi- “failed to disclose The district court resentenced Smiley court found any based on total offense level of any things number of number of as opposed to the offense level of 20 which to Probation. The financial statements” applied original sentencing, at the you court stated: “Can I tell resentenced to Guidelines sen- if I what I would do then knew percent tence of 72 imprisonment. months of January I everything today knew on 19? district court also ordered restitution in crystal No one can take ball and $674,691.41. the amount of it. But I’ll be honest. I reconstruct struggled guideline with whether a below ” II. Discussion appropriate.... origi- sentence was report presentence Smiley’s nal listed net Judgments The Power to Vacate Procured $404,830, presen- and the final worth by Fraud - report tence listed her net worth as Smiley contends that the district court $55,387. The district court stated on the in concluding erred that “fraud on the August resentencing record at the gave court” the district court an indepen- fraud had been committed on the jurisdictional dent basis to resentence her. totality court based on the of the circum- States, Smiley relies on Carlisle v. United stances, including which he found as Smi- 416, 426, 1460, 517 U.S. 116 S.Ct. 134 ley lying being separated about from her (1996), L.Ed.2d support 613 for her pro- husband and her husband’s failure to position that power there is no inherent of information,5 failing financial to dis- vide the district courts to act in contravention property, inflating the Florida close 7-day of the time limit to correct a sen- they in value of her assets when were tence that in Fed. is set forth R. Cr. P. 35. foreclosure, failing judg- to disclose Russell, Smiley also relies on Bowles v. ments of almost two million dollars that 2360, 551 U.S. 127 168 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d against Smiley entered or her busi- were (2007),6 96 proposition for the that January in of 2007. The district ness authority possess federal courts “no to cre- although Smiley’s court stated that con- jurisdictional equitable exceptions ate duct after the initial was not requirements.” Smiley cites to decisions fraud, relevant to the determination of jurisdiction- which hold that Rule 35 sets a limit, judging this conduct was relevant in Smi- al time which cannot extended. be ley’s credibility. The district court dis- Higgs, v. 504 F.3d 456 See United States Smiley (3d closed that he was interested in Cir.2007); Lopez, v. United States restitution, being able to make and that Eighth F.3d 512 The Cir- misrepresentations the fraudulent affected cuit has also held that more than seven days thought process. imposition his after the of defendant’s Smiley 5. had advised Probation that she was asked if he had lived in the same home with detained, encountering difficulty getting Smiley her until the financial infor- time presentence responded husband The from her husband. The affirmative. mation husband that he and had original report also testified writer in the states that getting a divorce and that he had reportedly separated discussed and her husband "were providing cooperated in fi- not with September due in to the stress of Smi- nancial information to Probation. ley’s legal current situation.... The husband was interviewed and confirmed the above in- presentence report corpus Supreme formation.” The final 6. In this habeas action the basically regarding recognize longer states the same the mar- Court ruled it would no riage. Smiley’s years unique exception husband of sixteen tes- circumstances to excuse an 27, 2007, April hearing. untimely filing appeal. tified at an When of notice of

sentence, jurisdic- holding court has no vance” to its was the inherent district if power tion to alter a even the sen- of federal courts to vacate their own See that a legally judgments upon proof tence was erroneous. fraud has 597(8th Austin, perpetrated upon States been the court. The Fed. R. Cir.2000)(interpreting former quoted Court Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Cr. 35(c) in R. Co., P. which is now set forth Hartford-Empire 322 U.S. 245- Fed. 35(a)). P. (1944), L.Ed. 1250 in 64 S.Ct. Cr. “ recognizing power equity ‘historic States, In Carlisle v. United the Su- fraudulently begotten judg to set aside that a court did preme Court held ” integrity ments’ in order to maintain the authority grant not have the a defen- safeguard public. of the courts and untimely dant’s motion for also recognized Court Chambers acquittal. Supreme Court reasoned power to an independent court’s conduct 7-day that R. Cr. P. 29 with its time investigation determining it whether has unambiguous limit was and that plain been the victim of fraud. 501 at U.S. authority grant court the district had no However, S.Ct. 2123. the Court untimely judg- motion postverdict also Chambers admonished because of acquittal. rejected ment of The Court potency powers pow of inherent these argument defendant’s ers must be exercised with restraint and within super- acted its “inherent discretion. Id. visory power” so as to “circumvent or con- flict with the Federal Rules of Criminal challenges Smiley’s The Government 425-25, Procedure.” 517 U.S. at 116 S.Ct. contention that the inherent to va Although Supreme ac- fraud, judgment procured cate a which knowledged recognition its earlier of a Chambers, recognized only in in exists powers in court’s inherent Chambers v. the civil context. The Government cites to NASCO, Inc., 32, 2123, 501 U.S. S.Ct. in decisions which courts have held that (1991), L.Ed.2d 27 the Court in Car- power courts have the inherent rejected lisle reliance on the inher- court’s correct criminal which pro sentences were power any ent because it was “unaware of through cured fraud. See v. United States ‘long unquestioned’ power of federal dis- 04-103, Gregg, No. 2006 WL 2850564 acquit trict courts to for insufficient evi- 2006)(order (E.D.Pa., Oct.3, in vacated sponte, dence sua after return of guilty v. Washington, United States 549 F.3d verdict.” 517 at U.S. 116 S.Ct. 1460. (3rd Dec.11, 2008 WL 5173327 Cir. 2008)); NASCO, Inc., Bishop, United States v.

In Chambers v. 501 U.S. In (1991), United States 111 S.Ct. 115 L.Ed.2d 27 Bishop, the defendant had been convicted Supreme the Court held a district in federal district court court, 3-year and his properly power invoked its inherent stayed sentence pending appeal. The assessing attorney’s in fees and related defendant in was then convicted state expenses as a sanction a party’s bad- 4-year court and sentenced to a sentence diversity faith conduct in a In action. thirty-year and an additional reaching sentence un holding rejected this an Court der the argument that state’s habitual offender statute. the Federal Rules of Civil requested The defendant that the displaced power Procedure the inherent federal sentence run orderly concurrently courts to maintain an and ex- be modified to peditious disposition thirty-four-year of the with the cases before state sentence. 43-44, them. 501 at Although subsequently U.S. 111 S.Ct. 2123. the state court va “particular conviction, Court noted that of rele- cated the habitual offender judgment gained the federal dis- correct the through defendant failed advise fraud vacated, conviction was trict court this which is determinative and not the nature granted district court and the federal of the proceeding which the fraud was and sentenced the defendant modification committed.” 774 F.2d at 774 n. 5. concurrently with the state Although Hazelr-Atlas involved a civil that the de- representation based on case, rather than a criminal the United thirty-four-year serving fendant was Supreme States Court later commented on state sentence. of a court to correct a Bishop After the federal district court in gained through case, fraud a criminal learned that the defendant’s state habitual Smith, United States v. 331 U.S. offender conviction had been vacated it (1947). S.Ct. 91 L.Ed. 1610 contacted the Government and held evi- Supreme Smith the Court construed Rule dentiary concerning the hearing matter. 33 of the Federal Rules Criminal Proce- court then found that the de- The district 5-day dure and held that because of the intentionally misrepresented fendant had limit making on a motion for trial new the status of his state convictions and mis- under that rule it was improper for the believing led the federal district court into grant district court to trial new on its subject thirty- that he was to a sentence of days own motion more than five after con- four-year years four rather than the sen- and viction after affirmance the Circuit actually serving tence he was the state Appeals. Supreme Court of penitentiary. The district court then va- further held that the Government was en- modifying its order the defendant’s cated prohibi- titled to writs of mandamus and reinstated its earlier sen- sentence require vacating granting tion to the order tence. 774 F.2d at 772-773. Although the new trial. Supreme Bishop At the time the district court in Court found the district court erred in modifying vacated order the defen- untimely granting a new trial in Smith 35(b) provid- dant’s sentence R. Cr. P. only upon based the defendant’s com- may ed that the court amend sentence plaints of errors irregularities during days within 120 after the sentence is im- trial, noted, Supreme his the “Of posed. 120-day period the Since had ex- course, power the federal courts have to pired by reimposed the time the court investigate a whether was ob- original his the defendant con- by tained fraud and make whatever modifi- juris- tended the district court was without necessary, any at cation is time.” 331 U.S. 35(b) reimpose diction under Rule to his 4, (citing at 476 n. 67 S.Ct. 1330 Universal sentence. The Seventh concluded Circuit Co., Refining Oil Products Co. V. Root 328 argument faulty this was in that it 575, 1176, U.S. 66 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. 1447 ignored power inherent court’s (1946)). judgment procured through to correct a Recently Ap the Third Court of Circuit 774 F.2d at (citing fraud. 773 Hazel-Atlas peals issued a decision in States v. United Co., Hartford-Empire Glass Co. v. 322 905, Washington, 549 F.3d 2008 WL U.S. 64 S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. 1250 (3rd Dec. 11,2008), 5173327 Cir. which dif (1944)). The Seventh further rea- Circuit holding fers with the Seventh Circuit’s soned that the fact case a involved Bishop and the statement in Smith. The sentencing process criminal rather than a Hazelr-Atlas, effectively in Washington decision over proceeding, civil such as in Gregg, 2006 inconsequential. was The Seventh Circuit rules United States v. WL (E.D. Pa., 3, 2006), explained, power “It is the of the court to a case 2850564 Oct. 1144 denying request, ques- in the case In this this Court upon by government

relied case, ju- Washington at hand. In the tioned “whether the district court has him- repeatedly misrepresented defendant risdiction to resentence defendant Gregg,” misrep- and the self as “Kennard statutory authority absence of to do so.” not disclosed until after Fincher, resentation was United States v. 538 F.3d correcting the time for a sentence had 35(a). R. P. passed under Fed. Based Cr. We need not and will not deter misrepresentation, “Gregg’s” this crimi- on mine in this case whether a district court two and the total history category nal historically recognized pow inherent has a nine, yielding level a Sentenc- offense criminal judgments procured er to vacate range of six to twelve ing Guidelines power fraud or whether such has been Washington misrepre- months. Had not abrogated by Congress, even if because identity and had his criminal sented his any power misrep this inherent still exists history properly using been calculated his resentations made in this case would not record, history criminal category true his justify vacating power the sentence. The would have been four and his offense level judgments procured by to vacate fraud nine, yielding range Guidelines of twelve must be exercised with restrain and dis court eighteen months. district cretion, see Chambers 501 U.S. at vacating an order its issued sen- 2123, and S.Ct. with consideration of the directing resentencing tence and on based long general prohibits established rule that upon fraud the court. The Third Circuit setting judg the alteration or aside of instructing issued writ of mandamus expiration ments after the of the term vacating district court to vacate its order judgments finally when such were entered. sentence. See Hazel-Atlas Co. v. Glass Hartford- Washington, In the Third held Circuit Co., Empire at U.S. S.Ct. may modify that a district court its own It must be shown clear and convincing only specific criminal sentence under stat- evidence that there was fraud on the court utory circumstances set forth in R. with all being doubts resolved favor of 35(a) 3582(c). Cr. P. and 18 U.S.C. finality judgment. of a Bulloch v. Third further that a Circuit held (10th States, power sponte court lacks inherent sua Cir.1985). addition, necessary it is

vacate its own criminal sentence based on alleged misrep examine the nature of the upon fraud court. The Third Circuit impetus vacating resentation that is the might reasoned that “to the extent there judgment procured by fraud. at point have one been inherent vacate a [to criminal sentence justi Fraud on court which court], upon on fraud pow- based the such vacating judgment narrowly fies is de by abrogated Congress pursuant er was to fined as “fraud which is directed to the 3582(c) § and Federal Rule of Criminal judicial machinery itself and is not fraud 35(a).” Procedure 549 F.3d 2008 WL parties between the or fraudulent docu at 5173327 *8. ments, perjury.” false statements or Bul 1121; also, loch at see United States v. Recently, this to asked re- Buck, 281 F.3d mand a the case so district court could The standard for fraud on the court in the imposed vacate the sentence it based on a exercising context of the court misrepresentations defendant’s its inherent and so the powers principles district court could resentence the under the of defen- Hazel-At during pendency dant the of appeal. higher his las Glass is and distinct the from obviously standard for fraud under well as the general more chaotic state of Smi- 60(b)(3). ley’s A fraud finding of finances reveals the unlikelihood of Fed.R.Civ.P. justi Smiley “is paying on the court under this standard restitution though even by egregious miscon only fied the most overstated her net worth. itself, the court such as duct directed to After Counsel at the bribery judge jury or or of of fabrication hearing advised the district court ” by City counsel.... evidence Greiner Smiley was repaying every committed to (8th Champlin, 152 F.3d of victims, dime to her the district court Cir.1998)(quoting Landscape Properties, so, asked if there a plan doing (8th Vogel, Inc. V. counsel advised that Smiley intended to Cir.1995)). arising Rules from the inher work and that position she was to powers ent of the courts have evolved liquidate assets and secure additional narrow, exceedingly require and to become loans. The district justifiably court was power to set aside a troubled about that misrepresentation. upon based fraud on the court involve the Smiley’s sentencing memorandum, howev- actually being by court deceived the mis er, Smiley’s service, focused on community Anchen, representation. Joseph See J. family commitment to and unlikelihood of Broader is Better: The Inherent Powers of recidivism, not the ability or intention to Courts, Federal 64 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. restitution, make as the basis for a vari- (2008). L., 37, 69 ance. In her allocution at sentencing Smiley made no reference to anything we do not condone While making Significantly, restitution. as was full less than disclosure for defendants noted, previously the district court sen- submitting financial forms as required tenced near the middle of the Guidelines 3664(d)(3),7 § 18 U.S.C. we do not believe range and grant request did not for a prior that the nondisclosures that occurred variance. original sentencing Smiley’s case Also, egregious constitute the “most miscon the record does not support vacating duct” so that the value of convincing clear and evidence the finding outweighed general principle Smiley misrepresented sentence the relation- supporting finality judgments. fail ship with her husband since the record ure report the fractional inter that Smiley’s establishes con- husband property presentence est Florida that was firmed sub with writer that he ject to foreclosure proceedings separated as well as and his wife had been for a time. addition, report judgments against failure to her the husband testified he had did not influence the uncooperative district court to sen been with in provid- tence Sentencing ing outside the Guidelines.8 financial information to Probation. As- equity suming debt versus information set deciding without that the district original presentence forth report had the inherent to set aside 3664(d)(3) provides: 7. 18 U.S.C. requires relating tion that the court to such appropri- other factors as the court prepare Each defendant deems shall and file probation fully with the officer an affidavit ate. describing the financial resources of the defendant, including complete listing of The financial condition of did not by impact all assets owned or controlled the defen- the restitution that was owed under dant as of the date on which the defendant Mandatory the Victims Restitution Act since arrested, the financial needs and earn- mandatory. restitution is See United States v. ing ability the of defendant and the defen- Miller, (8th Cir.2005). 419 F.3d 794 dependents, dant’s and such other informa- 1146 tion, an and there is no clear error in the original

the it was still abuse original the sen- of discretion to vacate district court’s determination of the heightened the standard tence since amount of restitution. court was not met

fraud on the in.this vacating original the sen- case. The order III. Conclusion sentence of sev- subsequent tence and the if a We conclude even district enty-two imprisonment of are re- months historically possesses recognized inher- is remanded with versed and the matter judgment ent to vacate criminal original to reinstate the sen- instruction fraud, by in procured conduct issue tence. which before the occurred sen- Disputed Restitution Amounts in tencing this case does not fall within the to the restitution Smiley stipulated upon narrow definition of “fraud the court” amounts owed to all but seven victims. which to vacate a required judgment. is government contends vacating We reverse the order by a of evi prove preponderance failed to subsequent judgment sentence and the disputed restitution amounts for dence seventy-two months these seven victims and claims that imprisonment, affirm but Inspector regarding Postal who testified court’s order of restitution. accepted the restitution owed these victims they the amounts these victims stated COLLOTON, Judge, concurring Circuit conducting indepen were owed without judgment. investigation of the amounts dent owed. assuming Even that a district court en- government has the burden of joys in power, inherent cases of fraud on proving pre the restitution amount court, in judgment to vacate a a crimi- ponderance of evidence. United nal case outside the limits established (8th Young, v. 272 States F.3d 3582(c) 18 U.S.C. and Federal Rule of Cir.2001). review for clear error the We 35(b), Criminal Procedure the court ex- court’s determination plains that “fraud on the court” must be amount of restitution. United States v. “narrowly defined as ‘fraud which is di- Fogg, 409 F.3d judicial machinery rected to the itself and transcript July of the 2007 restitu parties is not fraud between the or fraudu- hearing tion reveals that when the Postal documents, lent perju- false statements or Inspector interviewed victims issue ” Ante, ry.’ (quoting at 1144 v. Bulloch regarding pur their losses for restitution (10th States, poses, most of victims had these reviewed Cir.1985)); see also United States records, their own bank records received Throckmorton, 61, 65-67, 98 U.S. 25 L.Ed. Smiley, correspondence from no (1878) (“The doctrine is ... well settled tices from the Internal Revenue Service. judgment that the court will not set aside a Also, the knowledgeable victims were because it was founded on a fraudulent matters, business and tax and the Postal instrument, evidence, perjured or or for Inspector had received infor records and any actually matter presented legal mation from some of the victims’ assailed.”); and considered in the addition, representatives. the Postal Commentary, Rule 60b on Other Inspector instructed the victims to calcu Effect of Judgment, Methods 4 Fed. adding penal late their losses without of Relief from (1941) (“[B]y ties and Rules Serv. the ma- interest. The Government met its fraud, proving jority burden in the amount perjury of restitu- view intrinsic such as evidence, documentary is of falsified or use courts.”). in federal for relief ground

not a in this case re- district court

Because in- exclusively misrepresentations, on

lied disclosures, to dis- and failures

complete Smiley during pre- by Angela

close at her

sentencing process and judgment. I concur in the court’s

hearing, of the inherent application

Even would not authorize

available civil cases vacate the

the district court to case, no “fraud on because there was

this I in that context. as defined

the court” the evidence is no view on whether

express clearly and convinc- to establish

sufficient misrepresentations made

ingly agree court. I with the

to the district Smiley’s challenge to disposition of

court’s court’s order of restitution. Petitioner, Jerry DUKULY,

Baraka Attorney FILIP,1 Acting

Mark

General, Respondent.

No. 07-3873. Appeals, States Court of

Eighth Circuit. Sept. 2008.

Submitted:

Filed: Jan. Mukasey Attorney Michael B. Appellate Pro- former General 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General cedure Respondent in this case. Filip automatically Mark is substituted for

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Smiley

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 26, 2009

Citation: 553 F.3d 1137

Docket Number: 07-3205

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.