U.S. v. Jenkins-Watts

Decision Date04 August 2009
Docket NumberNo. 08-2287.,No. 08-2291.,No. 08-2295.,08-2287.,08-2291.,08-2295.
Citation574 F.3d 950
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Chandra L. JENKINS-WATTS, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Tarik I. Liwaru, Appellant. United States of America, Appellee, v. Carlton P. Strother, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Elle J. Sullivant, Independence, MO, argued, for appellant Jenkins-Watts.

Floyd A. White, Jr., Kansas City, MO, argued, for appellant Liwaru.

Elizabeth Unger Carlyle, Columbus, MS, argued, for appellant Strother.

John E. Cowles, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, argued (John F. Wood, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before WOLLMAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Carlton Strother, Tarik Liwaru, and Chandra Jenkins-Watts,1 along with thirteen co-defendants, were indicted for their involvement in an instant credit fraud scheme and a loan fraud scheme. Strother, Liwaru, and Jenkins were tried jointly and convicted of the charges against them. Strother and Liwaru were convicted of conspiracy to commit aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1028A, and 1029; Strother and Jenkins were convicted of conspiracy to commit identity theft and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1028, 1028A, and 1029; and Strother was convicted of access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5).

The appellants raise a number of issues. Strother and Liwaru challenge their sentences and the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions. Liwaru argues that the district court2 erred in submitting a demonstrative exhibit to the jury and in providing supplemental instructions to the jury's questions. Jenkins contends that her speedy trial rights were violated, that the district court erred in denying her motions to sever and to suppress, that the indictment was defective, and that there was insufficient evidence to convict her of aggravated identity theft. We affirm.

I. Background

We state the facts in the light most favorable to the jury verdict. United States v. Johnson, 450 F.3d 366, 369 (8th Cir.2006).

A. Instant Credit Fraud Scheme

The instant credit fraud scheme in this case involved the use by Strother and his associates of counterfeit Kansas driver's licenses to apply for instant credit, purchasing big-ticket items, and reselling them for about half their retail value. The resale proceeds usually would be split between Strother, who was providing the counterfeit identification, and the associate who utilized the instant credit.

Strother chose identity theft victims based on their credit scores. He received credit reports from coconspirators, including Liwaru, who acquired the reports from legitimate businesses. A victim testified that he had refinanced his mortgage with Hearthside Lending before his identity was stolen, and the parties stipulated that the victims had applied for credit at either Hearthside Lending or an auto dealership before their identities were stolen. Coconspirator Michelle Williams testified that she witnessed Liwaru bring boxes of credit reports to Strother on two or three occasions and that those reports came from a mortgage company called "Heartland Mortgage." Strother and his associates would review the credit reports, setting aside the ones with a credit score of around 700. Williams stated that she would look for women with good credit scores who were approximately her age.

Strother supplied the counterfeit Kansas driver's licenses to the coconspirators. To create them, Strother would take a digital photograph of the person assuming the counterfeit identification or one would be given to him. Strother would then leave and return shortly thereafter with a counterfeit Kansas driver's license, complete with the identity theft victim's information, the coconspirator's picture, and, in some cases, the holographic seal of Kansas. Toni Baker, a woman who had been involved in earlier identity theft schemes with Strother, testified that she had observed him making the counterfeit licenses. According to Baker, Strother would go to a friend's house and create the licenses on the computer. Several witnesses attested to the quality of Strother's work. For example, he made several counterfeit licenses for Williams, none of which were detected as fraudulent, even though she used them dozens of times.

The coconspirators, and sometimes Strother himself, would travel to retailers throughout the lower Midwest to open instant credit accounts.3 After the retailer approved the instant credit, the shopper would spend the entire amount for which she or he was approved. Strother often had buyers lined up to purchase the stolen goods, and he frequently told the shoppers which items to purchase.

In September 2005, a coconspirator was arrested at a Sam's Club in Lenexa, Kansas, after attempting to open an instant credit account. Employees indicated that he had arrived in a blue Crown Victoria, which a responding officer saw leaving the parking lot. The officer stopped the vehicle, and the driver identified himself as Liwaru. He said he was coming from a friend's house, but he could not remember the friend's name or address.

Law enforcement officers established video surveillance of Strother's residence in January or February 2006 and tapped Strother's phone in March 2006. In April 2006, Liwaru called Strother to inform him that a coconspirator was arrested in Topeka, Kansas, to which Strother replied that he needed "to clean up house."

B. Loan Fraud Scheme

In late 2004, Miles Thomas and Maurice Ragland recruited Stephen Edenfield and his girlfriend to join them in a mortgage fraud conspiracy. Thomas testified that he purchased counterfeit driver's licenses in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Doe4 from Bryant Griffin-Bey, who served as the middleman between Thomas and Strother. Edenfield and his girlfriend then posed as the Does, applying for mortgage loans and appearing at real estate closings. The scheme was successful, and some of the loan proceeds were wired to a fraudulent bank account that Edenfield had opened. In early 2006, Edenfield, Thomas, and Ragland discussed continuing the scheme in Dallas, Texas, but the plan was delayed when Edenfield was arrested in February 2006.

After Edenfield's arrest, Ragland, Thomas, and Ryan Miller revised the conspiracy, deciding to pursue business loans or lines of credit in Dallas. They chose Dallas because Jenkins, Ragland's then-girlfriend, worked there as a business specialist at a bank, handling small business activity such as opening accounts and processing loans. Jenkins could serve as their inside connection and assist them with processing the fraudulent transactions.

Ragland, Miller, Thomas, and Jenkins met at a casino in Kansas City to discuss the scheme. The plan involved acquiring the identity of an individual with a good credit score, finding someone to pose as that individual, purchasing a counterfeit identification card, registering a business, opening an account at the bank where Jenkins worked, and applying for credit and loans for the registered business. Miller announced that they would use the identity of Jane Doe5 and provided her social security number and birth date to Thomas.

Thomas gave the information to a friend who worked at a mortgage company and asked her to pull Jane Doe's credit report, which she did. The friend gave the report to Thomas, who in turn, gave it to Ragland, who said that he would fax it to Jenkins.

A woman, unnamed at trial, originally agreed to pose as Jane Doe, and Thomas purchased a counterfeit identification from Griffin-Bey. After the unnamed woman withdrew, Miller and Ragland persuaded Sheri Zuber to join the scheme, and Thomas purchased a second identification from Griffin-Bey. Griffin-Bey knew that Thomas had been involved in fraudulent real estate transactions, but Thomas told Griffin-Bey that he was going to use the Jane Doe identification to pass checks, so Griffin-Bey charged him less than usual: $500 for the first license, $250 for the second license. Griffin-Bey brought the women's digital photos to Strother, who created the counterfeit Kansas driver's licenses, charging Griffin-Bey $250-300 for the first license, half that for the second. The Secret Service was monitoring Strother at the time and searching his trash. On March 29, 2006, an agent found photo paper with the images of two Kansas driver's licenses, both displaying the identity information of Jane Doe.

Miller, Thomas, and Zuber drove overnight to Dallas, arriving on March 24, 2006. They purchased a post office box in Jane Doe's name and registered a business named Brooke Investments. They then drove to the bank where Jenkins worked. Zuber entered the bank alone, armed with Jane Doe's identification and paperwork regarding Brooke Investments. Zuber asked to speak to Jenkins and gave Jenkins the paperwork.

Jenkins submitted four loan applications over the course of fifty minutes. The first was an application for Brooke Investments, a Plano, Texas, construction company listed as having a gross annual revenue of $650,000. Shortly thereafter, Jenkins submitted an application for Brooke Agency, a Shawnee, Kansas, consulting business with a gross annual revenue of $300,000. Jenkins submitted a third loan application under the name Brooke Investments and a fourth under Brooke Agency. The applications requested business loans, lines of credit, and credit cards.

After the bank learned that Jenkins was the subject of a federal criminal investigation, an investigator from the company interviewed her. Jenkins admitted that she suspected the customer identifying herself as Jane Doe was a straw buyer. The investigator searched Jenkins's workspace and found a credit report for Jane Doe, which had been faxed to Jenkins on March 3, 2006. A business specialist would not have had access to credit...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 cases
  • United States v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • June 30, 2014
    ...See, e.g., Vidal–Reyes, 562 F.3d at 51–52; United States v. Magassouba, 619 F.3d 202, 206 (2d Cir.2010); United States v. Jenkins–Watts, 574 F.3d 950, 970 (8th Cir.2009). See generally Molly Booth, Comment, Sentencing Discretion at Gunpoint: How To Think About Convictions Underlying § 924(c......
  • U.S. v. Weiss
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 17, 2010
    ...as a whole, is “especially complex or especially intricate.” USSG § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) cmt. n. 8(B) (2007); see also United States v. Jenkins–Watts, 574 F.3d 950, 962 (8th Cir.2009) (“Even if any single step is not complicated, repetitive and coordinated conduct can amount to a sophisticated sc......
  • United States v. Nicolescu
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • November 9, 2021
    ...possession, or use of such device"); United States v. Jones , 792 F.3d 831, 835 (7th Cir. 2015) (same); United States v. Jenkins-Watts , 574 F.3d 950, 962 (8th Cir. 2009) (same). And, in an unpublished opinion, so have we. United States v. Wiley , 407 F. App'x 938, 942–43 (6th Cir. 2011). E......
  • U.S. v. Dowdell
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • February 12, 2010
    ...course, have been entirely free to do so, as his speedy trial rights remained in effect up until his trial date, United States v. Jenkins-Watts, 574 F.3d 950, 966 (8th Cir.2009), which was not until May 2007. Nevertheless, because Dowdell waived the claim with respect to this period, we do ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • U.S. Sentencing Commission Approves Major Changes To Fraud Guidelines
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • April 17, 2015
    ...comment (4)(F)(i)-(vi). 12 §2B1.1 (b)(10)(C). 13 648 F.3d 569, 576 (7th Cir. 2011). 14 480 Fed. App'x 431, 433-34 (7th Cir. 2012). 15 574 F.3d 950, 965 (8th Cir. 16 §4A1.2(a)(2). 17 See §1B1.3(a)(1)(B). 18 §3B1.2. 19 See Note 1. The content of this article is intended to provide a general g......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT