Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01595/USCOURTS-ca8-06-01595-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sylvester Richards Gayekpar
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

Nos. 06-1595/1807

________________

United States of America,

Appellee/Cross-Appellant,

v.

Sylvester Richards Gayekpar,

Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Minnesota.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: December 22, 2006

 Filed: January 4, 2007

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Sylvester Richards Gayekpar attacks the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 472

as applied to his conviction for possession of altered United States currency with the

intent to defraud. The Government cross-appeals Gayekpar's non-Guidelines sentence

as unreasonable. We affirm the district court's judgment of conviction and remand for

resentencing.

Gayekpar attempted to defraud an acquaintance, Abdullah Abdullah, with a

"black money" scheme. He claimed to have $3 million worth of U.S. currency that

Appellate Case: 06-1595 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2007 Entry ID: 3264714
-2-

had been covered with a black substance to get it out of Liberia and into the United

States. Gayekpar promised to give Abdullah a portion of the cleaned money if

Abdullah would help him obtain the $90,000 he allegedly needed to purchase a special

chemical used to restore the currency to a useable form. Gayekpar demonstrated the

process by purporting to clean some of the blackened money and offered to let

Abdullah keep a cleaned $50 bill as a show of good faith. Abdullah was skeptical of

Gayekpar and contacted local officials. He eventually worked with the Secret Service,

who arrested Gayekpar when he arrived at Abdullah's business to collect $30,000 of

baited money. Investigators determined that the "black money" was actually black

construction paper. 

Gayekpar was charged and convicted by a jury of possessing altered U.S.

currency with intent to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 472. At the time of

Gayekpar's sentencing, he had been in custody for nearly eight months, and the district

court sentenced him to "time served." Gayekpar appeals his conviction, and the

Government cross-appeals his sentence.

Gayekpar concedes that under Eighth Circuit precedent, his conduct is

punishable under § 472. See United States v. Idriss, 436 F.3d 946, 949 (8th Cir. 2006)

(holding that blackened currency in an identical scheme was "altered" within the

meaning of § 472). He claims, however, that application of the statute to altered

genuine currency, as opposed to counterfeit currency, is beyond Congress's

enumerated power to punish counterfeiting. See U.S. Const. Art. 1 § 8 cl. 6

(authorizing Congress "[t]o provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the

Securities and current Coin of the United States"). Congress's power over currency

is not limited to clause 6, however. Article 1, section 8, clause 5 of the Constitution

grants to Congress the power to "coin Money, [and] regulate the Value thereof,"

which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include "the correspondent and necessary

power and obligation to protect and to preserve in its purity this constitutional

currency for the benefit of the nation." United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 How.)

Appellate Case: 06-1595 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2007 Entry ID: 3264714
-3-

560, 568 (1850) (relying on the broader clause 5 powers, coupled with the Necessary

and Proper clause, to uphold a constitutional challenge to Congress's ability to

criminalize the passing of counterfeit notes). 

Gayekpar did not challenge the constitutionality of § 472 in the district court.

We therefore review his challenge for plain error, United States v. Letts, 264 F.3d 787,

789 (8th Cir. 2001) ("We review Letts's constitutional challenges to § 922(g)(3) for

plain error, because he did not make those claims in the district court."), cert. denied,

535 U.S. 908 (2002), and will reverse only if application of the statute to Gayekpar's

conduct is "so plainly unconstitutional that the failure of the trial court or this Court

to hold it so can be regarded as a plain error or a culpable neglect of judicial duty,"

United States v. White, 890 F.2d 1033, 1034-35 (8th Cir. 1989) (internal marks

omitted). Congress's power to regulate the alteration of genuine U.S. currency is part

of its broad power "to protect and to preserve in its purity this constitutional currency

for the benefit of the nation." Marigold, 50 U.S. at 568; see also United States v.

Howell, 470 F.2d 1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1972) (relying on Marigold and Art. 1, § 8, cl.

5 to uphold 18 U.S.C. § 473, which criminalizes the dealing in counterfeit or altered

currency, against a constitutional challenge); Barbee v. United States, 392 F.2d 532,

536 (5th Cir.) (upholding a challenge to altered genuine currency, noting that "because

attacks upon the physical integrity of currency in particular may endanger society by

depleting the public trust in its economic standard, the government must establish

sanctions to discourage such attacks"), cert. denied, 391 U.S. 935 (1968). We uphold

Gayekpar's conviction against his constitutional challenge.

Gayekpar has not responded to the government's cross-appeal. At sentencing,

the district court adopted the undisputed factual findings contained in the presentence

investigation report (PSR), determined an intended loss of $90,000, and calculated his

adjusted offense level at a level 15, based on a base offense level of 7, United States

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (USSG) § 2B1.1(a)(1), and an 8-level enhancement for

an intended loss between $70,000 and $120,000, USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(E). Coupled

Appellate Case: 06-1595 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2007 Entry ID: 3264714
-4-

with a criminal history category of II, Gayekpar faced an advisory Guidelines range

of 21 to 27 months of imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court said: "The

sentence will incorporate the Supreme Court decisions of last year and will take into

consideration paragraph 2 of Section 3553(a), which outlines the duties of the Court

in imposing sentence." (Sentencing Tr. at 12.) The district court then sentenced

Gayekpar to "time served," or approximately eight months. 

When the parties do not dispute the applicable advisory Guidelines range, the

issue before this court is whether the district court imposed a reasonable sentence in

light of the § 3553(a) factors, which we review for an abuse of discretion. United

States v. Bradford, 447 F.3d 1026, 1028 (8th Cir. 2006). A sentence within the

properly-calculated advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable, and a

sentence outside of that range requires some explanation. Although a rote recitation

of the § 3553(a) factors is not required, "the court should explain both the decision to

vary and the extent of the variance." Id. (remanding for resentencing where the only

factor discussed by the district court did not justify a sentence significantly below the

advisory Guidelines range). 

In its written statement of reasons filed after the sentencing hearing, the district

court listed various statutory factors: §§ 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C),

(a)(2)(D), (a)(6), and (a)(7), without explaining their significance to Gayekpar's case.

It is not clear whether the district court adopted any of Gayekpar's arguments at

sentencing for a non-Guidelines sentence. Based on the record, however, none of the

subsections cited by the district court justifies a sentence thirteen months below the

advisory Guidelines range. Some of the subsections cited by the district court do not

apply at all; for example, neither restitution under § 3553(a)(7) nor the need for

training or medical care under § 3553(a)(2)(D) is at issue in this case. Other cited

subsections actually counsel toward a longer rather than a shorter sentence. For

example, the lenient sentences (probation for one defendant and six months of

imprisonment for the other) originally received by the defendants in Idriss, at least one

Appellate Case: 06-1595 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/04/2007 Entry ID: 3264714
-5-

of whom reportedly trained Gayekpar in perpetrating the same scheme, apparently

failed to deter others, namely Gayekpar, from similar conduct. See § 3553(a)(2)(B)

(sentence imposed should afford adequate deterrence). In addition, Gayekpar engaged

in the offense conduct less than one year after pleading guilty to committing financial

transaction card fraud for stealing and using a VISA debit card and possessing his coworkers' blank checks, for which he spent nine days in jail. See § 3553(a)(1) (history

and characteristics of the defendant); § 3553(a)(2)(C) (sentence imposed should

protect the public from the defendant). The original sentences received by the

defendants in Idriss were reversed on appeal because the district court, acting after

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and before United States v. Booker, 543

U.S. 220 (2005), did not consider the amount of the loss. See Idriss, 436 F.3d at 951.

On remand, those defendants received sentences of six months and eighteen months

of imprisonment. Considering Gayekpar's higher criminal history score of II,

compared to the criminal history category of I faced by both of the Idriss defendants,

a sentence below the advisory Guidelines range was not necessary to avoid

unwarranted sentencing disparities. See § 3553(a)(6). 

On this record, an unexplained sentence of "time served," resulting in a

sentence thirteen months below the 21-month bottom of the presumptively reasonable

advisory Guidelines range, is unreasonable where nothing in the record supports it.

See United States v. McMannus, 436 F.3d 871, 875 (8th Cir. 2006).

We affirm the judgment of conviction, and we remand for resentencing

consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-1595 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/04/2007 Entry ID: 3264714