United States v. Roberts, 020518 FED8, 17-1366

Docket Nº:17-1366
Opinion Judge:HOLMES, District Judge.
Party Name:United States of America, Plaintiff- Appellee v. Albert William Roberts, III, Defendant-Appellant
Judge Panel:Before COLLOTON and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges, and HOLMES, District Judge.
Case Date:February 05, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

United States of America, Plaintiff- Appellee

v.

Albert William Roberts, III, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1366

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

February 5, 2018

Submitted: November 15, 2017

Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City.

Before COLLOTON and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges, and HOLMES, [1] District Judge.

HOLMES, District Judge.

Albert William Roberts, III, appeals the judgment of the district court2denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and sentencing him to 48 months' imprisonment. We affirm.

I.

Roberts was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and with four separate counts of wire fraud. The separate instances of wire fraud were based on transactions carried out during the course of the conspiracy charged in the first count.

The charges were based on Roberts' conduct in numerous real estate transactions. Roberts purchased 12 homes from the same seller, Gary Penrod, and obtained loans from various lenders for each home. On loan applications and closing documents, Roberts failed to report all properties he owned, recorded substantially different income levels, and claimed he would be an owner-occupant for four separate properties. Additionally, Roberts and Penrod never negotiated the sale price, but Roberts generally purchased the homes at list price. In those instances where his lender would not approve a loan at list price, Roberts purchased the homes for some lesser amount for which a loan would be approved. Subsequent to the closing of the purchases, Roberts received payments from Penrod that covered closing costs. Roberts also received payments from Penrod that Roberts characterized as profit sharing, but that the government viewed as kickbacks for Roberts' participation in the wire fraud conspiracy. However they should be characterized, Roberts filed no supplemental closing documents disclosing any of these payments.

At trial, Roberts moved for judgment of acquittal. The motion was denied. The jury acquitted Roberts of the conspiracy charge but found him guilty of the four separate counts of wire fraud.

At sentencing, Roberts objected to the district court's use of acquitted conduct to determine the loss amount and the number of victims. The district court overruled Roberts' objections and calculated that his sentencing range under the United...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP