United States v. David Robinson, No. 10-1367 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendants, two individuals, appealed their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to produce fraudulent diplomatic identification cards and for wrongfully using the Department of State seal when they marked and sold fraudulent diplomatic immunity cards. At issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict; whether the district court erred in applying a two-level enhancement for misrepresenting themselves as government agents; and whether the two-level enhancement was an obstruction of justice where one defendant took retaliatory actions against officials investigating the scheme. The court held that the voluminous trial transcript was replete with sufficient evidence to support defendants' conviction on all counts. The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in applying a two-level enhancement where there was enough evidence to support the enhancement when defendants sold hundreds of cards bearing the seal of the United States Department of State, as well as the seal and signature of the Kansas Secretary of State. The court further held that even if the district court did commit a procedural error in applying the obstruction enhancement, any procedural error committed by the district court was harmless.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to support convictions for conspiracy to produce fraudulent diplomatic identification cards and for wrongfully using the seal of the Department of State; no error in imposing enhancements for number of victims, amount of loss, and posing as government agents; no error in imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice after defendant Robinson took retaliatory actions against persons involved in the prosecution; even if it was an error, the error was harmless as the court made clear it would impose the sentence without the enhancement.
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.