United States v. Mshihiri, No. 14-3802 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for charges related to his involvement in a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress and concluded that the information provided by the confidential reliable informant (CRI) was sufficiently reliable to support a finding of probable cause, regardless of the manner in which he was identified; statements defendant made to investigators were properly admitted where defendant was not in custody at any point during the interview at issue; the district court did not clearly err in its credibility findings; and the court rejected defendant's claim that his statements were not voluntarily because the agents threatened defendant's wife and children. The court also concluded that the government proved a single conspiracy involving four properties; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress pretrial and in-court identification of defendant; the district court did not err in determining defendant's relevant conduct, the actual loss amount, and that defendant had obstructed justice; and neither Apprendi v. New Jersey nor Alleyne v. United States are applicable in this case because the district court's findings did not increase the statutory maximum sentence or the statutory mandatory minimum sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Beam and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant's statements to investigators were properly admitted as they were voluntary; the government's evidence proved a single conspiracy involving four properties and not multiple conspiracies; no error in denying defendant's motion to suppress a pretrial and an in-court identification by one of the government's witnesses who met defendant during one of the transactions; the district court did not err in calculating the amount of loss; the court's relevant conducts findings are affirmed; no error in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice based on defendant's false testimony at the suppression hearing and at trial; neither Apprendi nor Alleyne apply to defendant's case as the district court's findings did not increase the statutory maximum sentence or the statutory mandatory minimum sentence.
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.