800 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2015), 14-3685, United States v. Doren

Docket Nº:14-3685
Citation:800 F.3d 998
Opinion Judge:BEAM, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee v. James Van Doren, Defendant - Appellant
Attorney:For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Conner Eldridge, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Kenneth P. Elser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR; Benjamin Wulff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Western District of Arkansas, ...
Judge Panel:Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:September 03, 2015
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
SUMMARY

Based on an elaborate scheme by Barber, Van Doren, and Barber's attorney, Knight to defraud Barber's creditors by concealing income, assets, and funds, involving Barber's business ventures, the three were charged with bankruptcy fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, and similar crimes. Van Doren pled guilty to money laundering by engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified ... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 998

800 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2015)

United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

James Van Doren, Defendant - Appellant

No. 14-3685

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

September 3, 2015

Submitted June 11, 2015.

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville.

For United States of America, Plaintiff - Appellee: Conner Eldridge, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Kenneth P. Elser, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR; Benjamin Wulff, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Western District of Arkansas, Texarkana, AR.

For James Van Doren, Defendant - Appellant: Stephen Louis Braga, I, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA SCHOOL OF LAW, Charlottesville, VA; Gary D. Corum, WILSON & ENGSTROM, Little Rock, AR.

James Van Doren, Defendant - Appellant, Pro se, Minersville, PA.

Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

Page 999

BEAM, Circuit Judge.

James Van Doren appeals his conviction and sentence as well as the district court's1 denial of his motion to withdraw his plea; Van Doren also appeals the denial of his motion for reconsideration of this motion to withdraw; the district court's refusal to vacate the money judgment for $22,000; and the district court's order applying Van Doren's $25,000 cash bond toward payment of a fine, special assessment, and satisfaction of the money judgment.2 For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2013, a grand jury charged James Van Doren and two codefendants in a multicount indictment containing various counts of bankruptcy fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, and similar charges, all related to financial dealings between the three men charged. The twenty-seven-count, third superseding indictment specifically named Van Doren in seven counts, and he ultimately pled guilty to one count, count 24, which charged Van Doren with money laundering by engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.

As relevant to this matter, and in general terms, the third superseding indictment contained allegations of an elaborate scheme by Brandon Barber, Van Doren, and Barber's attorney K. Vaughn Knight to defraud Barber's creditors by concealing income, assets, and funds from them in order to allow Barber to use those funds for his benefit, including for his personal expenses. The dealings between the men generally stemmed from Barber's extensive real estate development, construction, and sales, and the various businesses created to handle Barber's business ventures. The resulting bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering allegations, along with the related conspiracy charges, stem from these many dealings with Barber. Noted previously, Van Doren pled guilty to count 24, which specifically alleged:

On or about the 29th day of October, 2008, in the Western District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division and elsewhere, the defendants, Brandon Lynn Barber and James Van Doren, aided and abetted by each other and others known and unknown to the grand jury, did knowingly engage in a monetary transaction through a financial institution, affecting interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, that is, by causing $22,000 to be transferred from a Citibank Account in New York in the name of James Van Doren to a First Security Bank account in Fayetteville, Arkansas in the name of the Barber Group, an entity owned by Barber, such proceeds having derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. All in violation of 18 U.S.C. § § 1957 and 2.

Particular transfers of money between Barber and Van Doren formed the basis for Van Doren's guilty plea and the district court's loss calculations at sentencing. The factual basis for the guilty plea states:

On or about October 29, 2008, in the Western District of Arkansas, and elsewhere, James Van Doren, aided and abetted by Brandon Barber, engaged in a monetary transaction through a financial institution, affecting interstate commerce, in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000. Van Doren had agreed with Barber to conceal certain amounts of Barber's income and transactions from creditors. As part of this scheme and artifice to hide money from and thereby defraud his creditors, on or about September 29, 2008, Barber endorsed a check payable to him in the amount of $64,000 over to Van Doren. Van Doren deposited this check into his Citibank Account in New York. On or about October 29, 2008, Van Doren wired $22,000 of these funds from his Citibank account in New York, to an account at First Security Bank in Fayetteville, Arkansas, in the name of The Barber Group, controlled by Barber. Van Doren agreed and intended to help Barber conceal these funds and defraud Barber's creditors. The records and evidence would further show that the specified unlawful activity for this transaction was wire...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP