Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04222/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04222-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donrico Humphrey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4222

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Donrico Humphrey, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] 

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 26, 2006 

Filed: November 13, 2006

___________

Before ARNOLD, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Donrico Humphrey appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to

commit wire fraud. Humphrey contends the district court1

 erred by denying his

motion to acquit at the close of the evidence and improperly determined his 135-

month sentence. We affirm the judgment of the district court. 

Humphrey first argues there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of

what he characterizes as two of three "distinct schemes" included in the conspiracy

Appellate Case: 05-4222 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2006 Entry ID: 2108855
-2-

count. "We review de novo the district court's denial of a motion to acquit for lack

of sufficient evidence" and "must affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the

conviction, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government."

United States v. Blakey, 449 F.3d 866, 868-69 (8th Cir. 2006). Because Humphrey

did not present a multiple conspiracy instruction or object to the single conspiracy

instruction given, the district court’s failure to give a multiple conspiracy instruction

is reviewed for plain error. United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1082 (8th Cir.

1988).

The indictment alleged the conspirators set up three fictitious companies—AllAmerican Tire and Wheels, Ultimate Performance Wheels and Accessories (UPWA),

and Ultimate Tire and Wheels (UTW)—solely for the purpose of defrauding credit

card companies. Humphrey was the architect of the All-American Tire and Wheels

scheme and this scheme was the progenitor and model for defrauding the credit card

companies in the other two schemes. His source for stolen credit card numbers was

used for all three schemes. In addition, Humphrey instructed two of the participants

in the UPWA and UTW schemes on how to defraud the credit card companies. 

The All-American scheme involved three co-conspirators in addition to

Humphrey with an intended loss of more than $100,000. The UPWA scheme

involved at least five co-conspirators in addition to Humphrey with an intended loss

of more than $100,000. The UTW scheme involved four co-conspirators but fell

apart quickly and involved a relatively small loss. Humphrey contends the proof at

trial did not show he participated in either the UPWA or UTW schemes. Humphrey

points to the testimony of co-conspirator Dominique Bourn in support of his

argument. Bourn testified Humphrey was not involved in the UPWA and UTW

schemes. Another co-conspirator, however, Mitchell Green, testified Humphrey was

involved in the UPWA scheme. A detective also testified that Humphrey admitted

instructing participants in the UPWA and UTW scheme in conducting the credit card

fraud. Whether the jury believed Bourn or Green was the province of the jury and is

Appellate Case: 05-4222 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2006 Entry ID: 2108855
-3-

not subject to review. United States v. Wilkerson, 691 F.2d 425, 427 (8th Cir. 1982)

(per curiam). Given the above evidence, the district court's failure to give a multiple

conspiracy instruction was not plain error and, after a de novo review, we find there

was substantial evidence to support the conviction, taking the evidence in the light

most favorable to the government. Thus, the district court did not err in denying

Humphrey's motion to acquit.

Humphrey also challenges the district court's application of the U.S. Sentencing

Guidelines (U.S.S.G.). "On appeal of a sentence, we review de novo the district

court's application of the sentencing guidelines and its factual findings for clear

error." United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d 737, 739-40 (8th Cir. 2006). First,

Humphrey argues the district court erred in allocating the intended loss from the

UPWA scheme to him, resulting in the addition of twelve levels to his base offense

level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) (indicating a twelve-level increase is

applied when the loss exceeds $200,000). Second, Humphrey argues the district

court erred in identifying him as a leader of a conspiracy involving five or more

participants because of his role in the All-American and UPWA schemes, resulting

in the addition of another four levels to his base offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.1. We find no clear error in the district court's determination that Humphrey

was a participant in the UPWA scheme. Thus, no error occurred in attributing more

than $200,000 to him or in finding he participated in a criminal offense involving five

or more participants. Furthermore, the evidence at trial showed Humphrey put the

conspiracy in motion, enabled it, and trained the prime actors who continued it.

Therefore, the district court did not err in adding twelve levels to his base offense

level for the more than $200,000 intended loss involved or in adding four levels for

his leadership role in the criminal activity.

Finally, Humphrey contends his sentence was unreasonable because the district

court gave undue weight to his role in the criminal activity and imposed a sentence

disproportionate to two of his co-conspirators. Humphrey's sentence was within the

Appellate Case: 05-4222 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2006 Entry ID: 2108855
-4-

guideline range of 135-168 months and is presumptively reasonable. United States

v. Lincoln, 413 F.3d 716, 717 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 840 (2005). We find

Humphrey has not rebutted this presumption. Further, Humphrey was not similarly

situated to his co-conspirators because he was a leader in the criminal activity, had

a higher criminal history score, did not plead guilty, and did not cooperate with the

government. Thus, he was not entitled to a similar sentence. See, e.g., United States

v. Scott, 448 F.3d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding sentence disparity was not

unreasonable where one defendant was responsible for a greater portion of the

criminal activity and was a leader of the conspiracy); United States v. Vasquez, 433

F.3d 666, 671 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding sentence disparities among co-defendants not

unwarranted when defendants have different criminal histories).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4222 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/13/2006 Entry ID: 2108855