Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in accepting defendant’s guilty plea to charges of bank fraud, aggregated identify theft and obstruction of justice, where record showed that Dist. Ct. adequately told defendant that it would calculate operative sentencing-guideline range and consider possible departures and other sentencing factors under section 3553(a). Fact that Dist. Ct. failed to inform defendant of possible forfeiture of $4.3 million in assets did not render plea involuntary, where defendant failed to establish that he would not have pleaded guilty had Dist. Ct. explained potential of forfeiture. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that plea was involuntary because: (1) his plea lacked written plea agreement; (2) he made plea during mid-trial; and (3) he obtained no benefit from govt. for entering into instant plea. Remand, though, was required as to Dist. Ct.’s entry of $9.1 million restitution order, where, with respect to 19 properties, said order included lenders that did not qualify as “financial institutions” for purposes of obtaining restitution order under 18 USC section 20(10).

Dist. Ct. did not err in imposing below-guideline 68-month term of incarceration on mail fraud charge arising out of defendant’s scheme to file his own and others’ fraudulent tax returns that sought refunds on basis that U.S. govt. occupied Moorish land and owed Moorish members payment for said occupancy. Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that sentence was based on unsupported facts and further held that Dist. Ct. could properly find that: (1) defendant used his religious clout to persuade vulnerable persons to file fraudulent tax returns; (2) defendant was leader in scheme; (3) defendant received 10 percent of refunds obtained by followers who got unwarranted tax refunds; and (4) $16 million intended loss arising out of said scheme far exceeded stakes in similar cases.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support jury’s guilty verdict on charge of attempted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine under circumstances where police officials intercepted individual transporting methamphetamine from Texas to Illinois on behalf of defendant, after defendant had participated in phone calls that had been intercepted by police following issuance of warrant. Record showed that defendant had requisite intent to possess and distribute methamphetamine, where intercepted phone calls established that defendant specifically agreed with another individual to receive nearly 10 ounces of methamphetamine that would be delivered by third-party, and that third-party had picked up said drugs by time of his arrest. Also, instant quantity of methamphetamine suggested that defendant intended to sell it to others. Dist. Ct. also did not err in counting defendant’s state-court guilty plea on drug offense as “conviction” for purposes of enhancing his sentence under section 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), even though state court granted defendant deferred adjudication on said charge. Under federal law, defendant’s guilty plea on deferred adjudication counts as conviction, and thus Dist. Ct. could have used said guilty plea to enhance defendant’s sentence.

In prosecution on receipt and possession of child pornography, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motions to suppress evidence seized though issuance of “NIT” warrant that allowed officials to place special computer code on child pornography website that directed defendants’ computers to provide officials with IP addresses of defendants’ computers, which, in turn, led to issuance of warrants to search defendants’ computers. While defendants argued that searches performed by NIT computer program violated 4^th Amendment, Ct. of Appeals found that good-faith exception to exclusionary rule supported instant denials of said motions to suppress. Ct. rejected defendants’ contention that exclusionary rule did not apply where Magistrate Judge lacked authority to issue said warrant because it extended to people and property outside Magistrate’s district; and (2) instant officials did not execute search in good faith because reasonable official would have known that Magistrate Judge lacked authority to issue NIT warrant outside his or her district. Moreover, Ct. found that officers acted reasonably in preparing affidavit and executing NIT warrant given sophisticated nature of website and difficulty in identifying users of website.