U.S. v. Grayson Enterprises, Inc.

In prosecution on visa fraud, harboring and hiring unauthorized aliens charges, Dist. Ct. erred in failing to conduct Rule 44 inquiry on possible conflict of interest between defendant-entity and other individual defendant, who inaccurately represented to court that he was owner of said business, and where Dist. Ct. allowed single counsel to represent both defendants. Any error was harmless, though, since defendant-entity, which did not object to any conflict of interest at trial, failed to show any actual conflict between itself and individual defendant, where interests of both defendants were identical. Moreover, defendant failed to show that counsel’s actions served to prejudice itself in favor of individual defendant. Also Magistrate Judge did not commit reversible error by accepting defendant-entity’s guilty plea to certain charges through testimony of individual defendant, even though Magistrate Judge should have made greater inquiry into authority of individual defendant to plead guilty on behalf of defendant-entity, where: (1) evidence from subsequent trial indicated that individual defendant had unlimited authority as defendant’s de facto manager; and (2) defendant never objected at time of plea to individual defendant’s assertion that he had authority to enter into guilty plea on behalf of defendant. Also, record contained factual basis to support guilty plea, where record showed that defendant-entity hired three unauthorized aliens to assist it in its roofing business after visas to work had expired for two of said aliens, and where defendant was aware that third alien was otherwise in U.S. illegally. Also, record supported defendant’s convictions on harboring charges that went to trial, where defendant gave said aliens place to live, safeguarded said aliens by making it more difficult for authorities to locate said aliens and exploited said aliens by paying them less than prevailing wages and offering them housing.