USA v. Monique Sherree Wheat, No. 05-11483 (11th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 05-11483 ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT March 9, 2006 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK D. C. Docket No. 04-00366-CR-ODE-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MONIQUE SHERREE WHEAT, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _________________________ (March 9, 2006) Before BIRCH and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE *, District Judge. PER CURIAM: * Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. On appeal, Wheat raises the following issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, Wheat s guilt of conspiracy and possession of document making implements with intent to produce false identification documents; (2) whether Wheat s right to a fair trial was violated by the admission of evidence regarding nonpayment of state sales tax and federal and state income taxes; (3) whether taking judicial notice and the admission of testimony regarding state law concerning false identification documents constituted prejudicial error; (4) whether admission of testimony regarding purported profit margins was prejudicial error; (5) whether Wheat s right to a fair trial was violated by the jury instructions regarding intent and Counts 5 and 7; (6) whether Wheat s right to a fair trial was violated by failing to include her proposed jury instructions as to her theory of the case; (7) whether application of the role in the offense or criminal livelihood enhancements were proper in light of United States v. Booker, 453 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 749 (2005); (8) whether the federal statute regarding false identification documents, 18 U.S.C. § 1028, is facially overbroad or vague; and (9) whether the criminal livelihood enhancement, U.S.S.G. § 4B1.3, is vague either facially or as applied to Wheat. After careful consideration of the record and the parties briefs, and having entertained oral argument, we discern no error in the judgment and rulings of the district court, and, accordingly, we AFFIRM. 2
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.
