United States v. Borders, No. 14-3828 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Kenneth Ray Borders, Jon Dirk Dickerson, and Kyle Wayne Dickerson appealed their convictions for crimes involving stolen goods and vehicles. The convictions stemmed from defendants' participation in a conspiracy to steal commercial trucks, trailers, and cargo, and alter vehicle identification information. The court concluded that the totality of the circumstances supports the single conspiracy finding where a jury could reasonably find a single conspiracy existed and each defendant a knowing member of it; there was sufficient evidence to convict Kyle for aiding and abetting the unlawful transportation of a stolen vehicle (Count 2), but insufficient evidence to convict Kyle for aiding and abetting the possession of stolen goods and vehicles (Count 18, 20, and 25); the court rejected defendants' evidentiary challenges; the district court did not commit plain error in applying the sentencing enhancement for the total loss exceeding $1 million under USSG 1B1.3(a)(1)(B), the "in the business" enhancement to Borders and Dickerson under USSG 2B1.1(b)(4), the "stolen vehicle" enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(4) and (14), the leader/organizer enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a), and the "sophisticated means" enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(10); and the district court did not give Borders a disparate sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Wollman and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Based on the evidence in the case, a reasonable jury could find a single conspiracy existed and that each defendant was a knowing member of it; the evidence was sufficient to support defendant Kyle's conviction for aiding and abetting transportation of a stolen vehicle from Missouri to Florida (Count 2), but it was not sufficient to support his conviction for aiding and abetting possession of stolen goods found in a storage unit rented by his co-defendants (Counts 18, 20 and 25), and his convictions on those counts are vacated; challenges to evidentiary rulings rejected; the district court did not err in applying a sentencing enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) for a loss in excess of $1 million; the court did not err in applying an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(4) for being in the business of receiving and selling stolen goods to defendants Borders and Dickerson; no error in applying enhancements under both Guidelines Sections 2B1.1(b)(4) and (14); no error in applying a leadership role enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(a) or a sophisticated means enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(10) in sentencing defendant Borders; Borders did not receive a disparate 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.