United States v. Mobley
Decision Date | 21 August 2020 |
Docket Number | No. 19-3122,19-3122 |
Citation | 971 F.3d 1187 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Bogdana Alexandrovna MOBLEY, a/k/a Bogdana Alexandrovna Osipova, Defendant - Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Katryna Lyn Spearman(Joshua Sabert Lowther with her on the briefs), of Lowther Walker LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Defendant-Appellant.
Jason W. Hart, Assistant United States Attorney (Stephen R. McAllister, United States Attorney, with him on the briefs), Wichita, Kansas, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before HOLMES, SEYMOUR, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
In April 2014, a pregnant Bogdana Alexandrovna Osipova1 took her young son and daughter to Russia, leaving behind ongoing divorce proceedings in Kansas.By doing so, Osipova deprived Brian Mobley, her soon-to-be ex-husband and the father of her daughter and unborn child, of his joint-custody rights under the Kansas court's temporary custodial order.In Russia, Osipova soon gave birth to a girl and instituted her own divorce proceedings.The Russian court ordered Mobley to pay monthly child support.But by then the Kansas court had already awarded Mobley full custody of their two daughters, and he steadfastly refused Osipova's requests that he pay the Russian court-ordered child support.Eventually, in September 2017, Osipova returned alone to the United States on an ill-fated quest to modify the Kansas order.The FBI promptly arrested Osipova, and she has been incarcerated since.
The government prosecuted Osipova for international parental kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. § 1204, and extortionate interstate communications, 18 U.S.C. § 875(b).A jury convicted Osipova, and the district court sentenced her to three years on her parental-kidnapping conviction (the statutory maximum) and to seven years on each of her extortionate-communications convictions, all to run concurrently.
On appeal, Osipova argues that the federal district judge should have dismissed the indictment and recused himself from her sentencing.We reject these arguments.But Osipova also argues that insufficient evidence supports her § 875(b) convictions and that the court erred by awarding Mobley restitution for attorney's fees he incurred attempting to obtain physical custody of their two daughters.On these arguments, Osipova succeeds.Exercising jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1)and28U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm in part and reverse in part.We vacate Osipova's § 875(b) convictions and the restitution order, and remand for resentencing.
Osipova was born in Russia.In 2003, as an adult, she immigrated to New York where she married.This first marriage ended in a divorce in 2008 but produced a son over whom Osipova has full custody.In June 2011, Osipova briefly joined the Air Force Reserve where she met Mobley, her recruiter, and they struck up a romantic relationship.When the Air Force transferred Mobley to Wichita, Kansas, Osipova followed, and they married there in January 2013.That same month, they had a daughter, S.M.But fourteen months later Mobley filed for divorce.The Kansas state court entered a temporary order awarding the parents joint custody over S.M.Under this order, Osipova retained the marital residence at Mobley's expense and Mobley had to pay child support.
But Osipova, then about six months pregnant with their second child, did not want a divorce.According to Mobley, she threatened to return to Russia with S.M. if he did not drop the divorce.Though Mobley was concerned that Osipova would take S.M., he proceeded with the divorce.Then, "[o]n or about April 2, 2014," Osipova, about seven months pregnant, flew to Russia with S.M. and her son.Appellant's App.at 17.About two months later, Osipova gave birth to a girl.
Meanwhile, the Kansas divorce proceedings continued.Two weeks after Osipova left for Russia (so before she gave birth), the Kansas court held a hearing, at which Osipova's counsel was present.The court awarded Mobley full custody of S.M.And in December 2014, after Osipova gave birth, the court granted the divorce, awarded Mobley primary physical and sole legal custody of both girls, and ordered Osipova to return the girls to Mobley's custody.Osipova did not heed this order.By then, a Russian court had already granted her a divorce.And, in the spring of 2015, the Russian court awarded Osipova child support and residential custody of the girls.
Mobley's position in the military prevented him from traveling to Russia, so he tried to establish and maintain a relationship with his daughters via telephone and video calls.In January 2015, he went to Poland to meet Osipova and the girls at the Poland–Russia border, but Osipova showed up alone.After this, Mobley continued to use technology to try to communicate with his daughters—then, a toddler and an infant—and Osipova conditioned the requested communications on his paying the Russian court-ordered child support.But Mobley refused to financially support his daughters unless Osipova returned them to the United States.From November 2016 until her arrest, Osipova denied Mobley direct communication with their daughters.
In September 2017, Osipova left her children in Russia and traveled to Kansas to petition the court for sole legal custody of her daughters.The FBI quickly arrested her on a federal criminal complaint that charged international parental kidnapping, 18 U.S.C. § 1204, for allegedly removing S.M. to and retaining her in Russia.About two weeks later, a federal grand jury issued an indictment charging a single count, international parental kidnapping.Nine months later, the government filed a five-count superseding indictment (the "indictment") that added four counts of extortionate interstate communications, 18 U.S.C. § 875(b), based on Osipova's allegedly threatening to kidnap S.M. (by continuing to retain her in Russia) while intending both to obstruct Mobley's parental rights and to extort money or things of value.
On the eve of her trial, Osipova moved to dismiss the indictment "because of its lack of specificity."Appellant's App.at 21.The Kansas federal district court denied Osipova's motion, concluding that the indictment met the applicable legal requirements and that Osipova faced no prejudice.So Osipova went to trial, conceding her guilt on the international-parental-kidnapping count but adamantly denying any intent to extort money or things of value in exchange for placing S.M. in Mobley's physical custody in the United States.Osipova also maintained that her communications lacked any "threat to kidnap," an element of the charged extortionate-communication crime.See18 U.S.C. § 875(b).The jury returned guilty verdicts on the international-parental-kidnapping count and on two of the four extortionate-communication counts.Osipova timely moved the court to acquit her of the extortionate-communication convictions or, alternatively, to grant a new trial on those counts (2 and 3), again arguing that her communications lacked any threat to kidnap and implicitly denying any intent to extort.The relevant communications are provided here:
Count 3(Skype message from November 21, 2015 ):
Osipova:...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
United States v. Maynard
...evidence de novo to determine whether a rational jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Mobley , 971 F.3d 1187, 1195 (10th Cir. 2020) (quotations omitted).The government argues in its response brief, however, that Maynard waived his challenge to th......
-
United States v. Mjoness
...§ 875(c) refers to the definition of "kidnap" Congress set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1201, not the common-law crime. United States v. Mobley , 971 F.3d 1187, 1202–03 (10th Cir. 2020). Section 1201 employs a "verb string" to define kidnap. Id. A person kidnaps when he "unlawfully seizes, confines......
-
United States v. Houtar, No. 19-3627
...as applied to him, because the statute proscribes retention as well as abduction. See Miller, 626 F.3d at 688 ; United States v. Mobley, 971 F.3d 1187, 1204 (10th Cir. 2020) ("[W]e read § 1204 as providing three means of accomplishing ‘international parental kidnapping’ ... (1) removal, (2)......
-
Viegas v. Kane
...informed, thoughtful and objective observer, who is an average member of the public, not a hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person.” Id. (internal quotations and citation “Though judges ‘have a strong duty to recuse when appropriate,' they also have ‘a strong duty to sit,' and § 455 ......