Opinion ID: 3062121
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Motions to Dismiss the SI

Text: 1. Denial of Right to Testify at Evidentiary Hearing The district court held a two-day evidentiary hearing addressing all of Wilson’s motions to dismiss the SI. He contends that he was denied the right to testify at the hearing, but a review of the record indicates otherwise. During the first day of the hearing, the court advised Wilson that he would have an opportunity to -5- testify under oath. He proceeded to call numerous other witnesses and presented written exhibits, but he never called himself as a witness. Nor did the district court preclude him from testifying. Wilson’s contention is without merit. 2. Selective Prosecution Wilson argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the SI on the basis of selective prosecution. His theory was that the government had singled him out for prosecution based on his race, religion, heritage, and national origin. Wilson described himself as Arab or Middle Eastern and indicated that he was born in Egypt. “The Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race.” United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1263 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). In order to succeed on a selective-prosecution claim, a defendant must establish two elements: “[1] the federal prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and [2] it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.” Id. at 1264 (quotation omitted). To demonstrate a discriminatory effect, he “must show that similarly-situated individuals of a different race were not prosecuted.” Id. (quotation omitted). “[D]efendants are similarly situated when their circumstances present no distinguishable legitimate prosecutorial factors that might justify making different prosecutorial decisions with respect to them.” United States v. Deberry, 430 F.3d 1294, 1301 (10th Cir. 2005) (quotation omitted). “And the discriminatory-purpose element requires a showing that discriminatory intent was a -6- motivating factor in the decision to enforce the criminal law against the defendant. Discriminatory intent can be shown by either direct or circumstantial evidence.” Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d at 1264 (citation and quotation omitted). Because a motion to dismiss an indictment based on selective prosecution asks the court “to exercise power over a special province of the executive branch,” the standard of proof to succeed on such a claim is “demanding.” Id. (quotations omitted). “We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s grant or denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment.” Id. at 1265.2 The district court held that Wilson’s claim of selective prosecution failed on both prongs. First, he did not show that any similarly situated, non-Arab individual could have been, but was not, prosecuted for the offenses he was charged with in the 263 Case. Nor did he offer any credible evidence that the government, or the prosecutor in particular, acted for discriminatory reasons. Wilson contends that the district court erred because the government failed to produce any credible evidence that any similarly situated, non-Arab individual was 2 Wilson argues that this court should employ a different analysis to determine whether he was selectively prosecuted in this case. He maintains that we should evaluate the charges in the superseding indictment based on the factors that typically motivate a prosecutor’s decision to bring a case, such as the strength of the case and its relationship to the government’s overall enforcement plan. This contention misreads the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 (1996). Far from directing a court to apply these factors, the Supreme Court stated that they “are not readily susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake.” Id. (quotation omitted). The Supreme Court therefore held that defendants must demonstrate that a prosecution has a discriminatory effect and purpose. See id. -7- investigated and prosecuted for the offenses charged in the SI. This contention misconstrues Wilson’s burden of proof: he must establish a discriminatory effect. See id. at 1264. And he identifies only one non-Arab person who he alleges was similarly situated to him, but not prosecuted. He claims that the individual who he added as a signatory to his account at Academy Bank used a false Social Security number on her application, but he points to no evidence supporting that assertion or otherwise establishing that she was similarly situated to him. See Deberry, 430 F.3d at 1301. Likewise, Wilson’s references to unidentified, non-Arab customers who overdrew their bank accounts at ELCU and Chase, or who opened accounts at Academy Bank with another person’s Social Security number, fail to satisfy the demanding standard of proof that individuals of other races or heritage, who were similarly situated to him, were not prosecuted. See id. Wilson’s assertion that the United States Attorney’s office in Denver failed during a twenty-seven month period to prosecute any other “bad check,” identity theft, or Social Security fraud cases is likewise insufficient to show a discriminatory effect. The prosecution of only one defendant, who is Arab, is not evidence that any non-Arab individuals could have been, but were not, prosecuted for the offenses charged in the SI. See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 459, 470 (1996) (holding “study” showing that all defendants prosecuted for a particular offense during one-year period were black “failed to identify individuals who were not black and could have been prosecuted for the offenses for which respondents were charged, -8- but were not so prosecuted”). Nor was Wilson’s anecdotal evidence from criminal defense lawyers regarding their knowledge of the limited number of bad check prosecutions sufficient to support his contention of a discriminatory effect. See id. Because Wilson failed to present evidence showing a discriminatory effect, we need not address his contentions regarding proof of a discriminatory motive. See Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d at 1266 (affirming based on failure to present evidence on one prong). We affirm the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss based on a claim of selective prosecution. 3. Sham Prosecution Wilson also moved to dismiss the SI as a “sham prosecution,” contending that the 263 Case was merely a tool used by Colorado authorities to revive state prosecutions that were barred on state constitutional grounds. United States v. Barrett, 496 F.3d 1079, 1119 (10th Cir. 2007) (quotation omitted). The district court construed this motion as raising a claim under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, which precludes multiple prosecutions for the same crime. See id. at 1118. Under the “dual sovereignty doctrine,” the double jeopardy clause “is no bar to serial prosecution and punishment undertaken by separate sovereign entities.” Id. (quotations omitted). And “[a] classic application of the dual sovereignty doctrine is the case of successive prosecutions by a state and the federal government.” Id. (quotation omitted). In this case, Wilson argued the district court should apply the sham prosecution exception to this doctrine. That exception may arise “where -9- prosecution by one sovereign is used as a cover or tool for a successive prosecution by another sovereign.” Id. at 1119. We have stated that “[w]hen a defendant claims that federal and state officials are not acting as dual sovereigns, he has a substantial burden of proving one sovereign is so dominated by the actions of the other that the former is not acting of its own volition.” United States v. Raymer, 941 F.2d 1031, 1037 (10th Cir. 1991). Thus, evidence of close interaction between federal and state authorities is not sufficient to establish a sham prosecution, which “exists, if at all, only in the rarest of circumstances.” Barrett, 496 F.3d at 1119. Moreover, a sham prosecution claim fails if jeopardy never attached in the state prosecution. See Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1038 (rejecting double jeopardy claim based on sham prosecution because jeopardy never attached in state prosecution). “We review a district court’s legal conclusion on a double jeopardy claim de novo. Subsidiary factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1037 (citation omitted). The district court ultimately held that Wilson did not sufficiently allege a double jeopardy claim because state authorities never placed him in jeopardy on criminal charges based on the conduct alleged in the 263 Case. On appeal, Wilson continues to assert that his rights under the double jeopardy clause were violated because the 263 Case was a sham prosecution.3 But his arguments do not point to 3 In his reply brief, Wilson denies that he is making a sham prosecution argument in this appeal. But in his supplemental opening brief, he specifically (continued) - 10 - any error in the district court’s sole ground for denying his motion: the lack of jeopardy attaching on state-law charges. “[T]he omission of an issue in an opening brief generally forfeits appellate consideration of that issue.” Bronson, 500 F.3d at 1104; see also United States v. Yelloweagle, 643 F.3d 1275, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011) (applying same rule in appeal of criminal conviction). Because the district court’s finding is, by itself, a sufficient basis for its denial of Wilson’s sham prosecution motion, and Wilson fails to address it, he has forfeited any challenge to that ruling. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Wilson’s motion to dismiss the SI based on a claim of sham prosecution. See GFF Corp. v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 130 F.3d 1381, 1387-88 (10th Cir. 1997) (affirming where appellant’s argument failed to address one of district court’s independent grounds for granting summary judgment). 4. Vindictive Prosecution Wilson also moved to dismiss the SI as the product of prosecutorial vindictiveness. The SI, which was filed in December 2009, added new charges related to Wilson’s Academy Bank account and his Washington Mutual credit card, specifically three new counts of fraudulent use of a Social Security number, one new count of aggravated identity theft, and one new count of fraud in connection with an access device. Among other claims, Wilson contended in his motion to dismiss that referenced his sham prosecution motion, and he expressly made that argument. See Aplt. Supp. Opening Br. at 21, 26-27. He also fails to identify any other motion to which his arguments are directed. - 11 - the government sought the SI in retaliation for his filing of a civil rights lawsuit in October 2009 against the prosecutors in this case and a United States Postal Service Inspector involved in the underlying investigation. See Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1040 (“When a defendant exercises constitutional or statutory rights in the course of criminal proceedings, the government may not punish him for such exercise without violating due process guaranteed by the federal Constitution.”). “A defendant has the burden of proof and must establish either (1) actual vindictiveness, or (2) a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness which will give rise to a presumption of vindictiveness.” Id. Absent evidence of actual vindictiveness, “[o]ur inquiry must be whether, as a practical matter, there is a realistic or reasonable likelihood of prosecutorial conduct that would not have occurred but for hostility or punitive animus towards the defendant because he exercised his specific legal right.” Id. at 1042 (quotation omitted). Moreover, “[t]here is no vindictiveness as long as the prosecutor’s decision is based upon the normal factors ordinarily considered in determining what course to pursue, rather than upon genuine animus against the defendant for an improper reason or in retaliation for exercise of legal or constitutional rights.” Id. (quotation omitted). If the defendant satisfies his burden, the prosecution must “justify its decision with legitimate, articulable, objective reasons.” Id. at 1040. “[W]e review a district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard; our review of the legal principles which guide the district court is de novo.” Id. at 1039. - 12 - The district court held that Wilson failed to present any evidence of actual vindictiveness or a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. As to the second prong, it concluded he could not establish a presumption of vindictiveness based solely on his filing of a civil rights action, relative to the timing of the SI in this case. See United States v. Miller, 948 F.2d 631, 634 (10th Cir. 1991). In Miller, we held that “a presumption of vindictiveness based on timing alone [was] unsound as it could easily be abused.” Id. We observed further that “[a]dopting such a presumption would give sophisticated criminal suspects an opportunity to file civil charges against the government prior to an impending indictment, thus creating a presumption that the eventual charges were brought vindictively.” Id. The district court further held that, even if Wilson could establish a presumption of vindictiveness, the government had offered legitimate, articulable, and objective reasons for seeking the SI. It found that the government learned of the additional offenses while preparing to disclose to Wilson evidence of non-charged criminal conduct that it contemplated offering at trial under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). And the record showed that the government provided Wilson’s counsel with discovery concerning the Washington Mutual and Academy Bank accounts—and advised that it might seek additional charges in a superseding indictment—before he filed his lawsuit against the federal officials. The district court also found that the prosecutor believed that the government had sufficient evidence to charge Wilson with these crimes. It concluded that Wilson “presented no credible evidence which - 13 - casts doubt on the government’s stated reasons,” R., Vol. 3 at 56, stating further that, “[i]f anything, the timing suggests that defendant filed his lawsuit because the government was threatening to bring additional charges,” id. at 56 n.41. Wilson contends that one of the district court’s findings is clearly erroneous, namely that the government did not learn of the additional allegations until the fall of 2009. He asserts that the government was aware of the evidence supporting the new charges in the SI by May of 2008. But Wilson does not challenge the district court’s findings that the government advised him of the possibility that it would seek additional charges before he filed his civil rights claims against the federal officials, and that the government presented the evidence supporting these charges to a grand jury shortly thereafter. As we have noted, at the pre-trial stage “the prosecutor’s assessment of the proper extent of prosecution may not have crystallized,” and this “may be attributable to the prosecutor’s discovery of additional information or a better understanding of the broader significance of existing information.” Raymer, 941 F.2d at 1042-43 (quotation omitted and emphasis added). Therefore, even if the evidence regarding Wilson’s additional offenses was available to the government at an earlier time, “[a] presumptive inference of vindictiveness is not warranted as a matter of law by the sequence of events preceding the [SI]” in this case. Id. at 1042. We affirm the district court’s denial of Wilson’s motion to dismiss the SI based on a claim of vindictive prosecution. - 14 - 5. Outrageous Government Conduct Wilson’s final motion sought dismissal of the SI based on outrageous government conduct. “To succeed on an outrageous conduct defense, the defendant must show either: (1) excessive government involvement in the creation of the crime, or (2) significant governmental coercion to induce the crime.” United States v. Pedraza, 27 F.3d 1515, 1521 (10th Cir. 1994). Within these two contexts, “the relevant inquiry . . . is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances the government’s conduct is so shocking, outrageous and intolerable that it offends the universal sense of justice.” United States v. Perrine, 518 F.3d 1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotation, alteration, and ellipsis omitted). We have characterized the scope of this defense as “narrow,” id., and “extraordinary,” Pedraza, 27 F.3d at 1521. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss based on outrageous government conduct. Id. Wilson contends that the government’s conduct in this case was outrageous with respect to the charges relating to his use of a Washington Mutual credit card. He asserts that the government “manufactured” these offenses by presenting “sham witnesses” who testified falsely when the government “knew” he had no credit card and that he only had checking accounts and debit cards with Washington Mutual. He provides no citation to the record in support of these assertions. See United States v. Snow, 663 F.3d 1156, 1157 n.1 (10th Cir. 2011) (explaining the court will not generally consider factual allegations unsupported by citations to the record, and will not sift through record to find support for an argument). Moreover, as the - 15 - government points out, Wilson’s contention challenges the legal or factual basis for the charges, rather than showing that the government created or induced the crimes. See Pedraza, 27 F.3d at 1521 (“Excessive government involvement occurs if the government engineers and directs the criminal enterprise from start to finish.” (quotation and brackets omitted)); United States v. Harris, 997 F.2d 812, 816 (10th Cir. 1993) (noting “classic example” of government creation of a crime where government assisted and encouraged defendant to set up a methamphetamine lab). Wilson has not shown any error in the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the SI based on a claim of outrageous government conduct. 6. Re-evaluation of District Court’s Factual Findings Finally, Wilson invites this court to “re-evaluate” the district court’s factual findings in support of its denial of his motions to dismiss the SI. But he does not identify particular factual findings relevant to the 263 Case that he claims the court decided in error, along with citations to the record. He therefore fails to offer sufficient argument on this issue to invoke this court’s appellate review. See Murrell, 43 F.3d at 1389 n.2. Nor will we review the “sample” of allegedly erroneous findings by the district court that Wilson identifies for the first time in his reply brief. See Stump, 211 F.3d at 533. - 16 -