United States v. Calhoun, No. 12-1507 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant Calhoun appealed her conviction of two counts of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft and making false statements to investigators. Calhoun's convictions stemmed from her purchase of several "black market" airline tickets from Defendant Ross. Ross appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft, access device fraud, and aggravated identity fraud. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to convict Calhoun; the district court committed no prejudicial abuse of discretion in not sua sponte excluding an inspector's testimony; and the court rejected Calhoun's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court also concluded that the district court's finding that the fraud loss exceeded $1,000,000 was not clearly erroneous; the district court did not err in imposing a 6-level enhancement for a fraud offense involving more than 250 or more victims under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(C); and the district court did not err in imposing a 2-level enhancement for a fraud offense involving sophisticated means under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support defendant Calhoun's convictions for conspiracy to commit access device fraud and making false statements to Postal Inspectors; evidentiary challenges rejected; defendant Calhoun's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel should be brought in a habeas; district court did not err in calculating the amount of loss when it sentenced defendant Ross; nor did the court err in calculating the number of victims for purposes of Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(2)(C); no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for sophisticated means.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.