Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janio VICO, Jharildan Vico, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-23
Citations: 691 F. App'x 594
Docket Number: No. 16-10400
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janio VICO, Jharildan Vico, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 594–595

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janio VICO, Jharildan Vico, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 16-10400
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(June 23, 2017)
Robert Craig Juman, Jason Wu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Vivian Rosado, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Ellen L. Cohen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Humberto Dominguez, Humberto R. Dominguez, PA, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant Janio Vico
John E. Bergendahl, Law Offices of John E. Bergendahl, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant Jharildan Vico
Before TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO, District Judge.
Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Janio and Jharil-dan Vico were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and sentenced to 108 months in prison. They appeal their convictions and sentences. We have considered all of the Vicos' specifications of error. We have reviewed the following:
1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing testimony regarding Cuban ethnicity, in violation of the Vicos' due process and equal protection rights?
2. Whether the district court plainly erred in allowing evidence of prior bad acts and improper character evidence?
3. Whether the district court plainly erred in allowing testimony from Captain Steven Smith of Florida's Division of Insurance Fraud?
4. Whether the district court erred in its calculations regarding the loss amount and number of victims?
5. Whether the district court erred in its forfeiture determinations?
6. Whether the impact of cumulative error denied the Vicos their right to a fair trial?
After careful review of the briefs and the record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error. The decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.