United States v. Rubashkin, No. 10-2487 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, manager of a kosher meatpacking company, was convicted of 86 counts of bank, wire, and mail fraud; making false statements to a bank; money laundering; and violations of an order of the Secretary of Agriculture. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentence. The court held that there was no evidence in the record that the district court's decision to remain on the case prejudiced defendant's verdict and concluded that the district court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in trying the financial charges first where the district court's order was a practical solution given the nature and number of the charges. The court further held that, with the exception of one count of false statements to a bank which was premised solely on violations of immigration law, any error on this evidence would have been harmless because it would have had no effect on the verdict. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its wide discretion in excluding evidence. The court finally held that, because defendant's offense was falsely stating that the company was in compliance with its laws, the court did not commit plain error with its instruction on harboring illegal aliens; defendant's money laundering convictions were lawful and did not merge with any other of his crimes; there was no error in the district court's loss calculation; and the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in imposing a 324 month sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Defendant failed to show that the district court's pretrial meetings with immigration officials and prosecutors concerning an immigration raid prejudiced the jury's verdict, and the district court did not err in denying his Rule 33 motion; when the issue of recusal is raised for the first time on appeal, review is under the plain error doctrine, and there is nothing in the record to show the district court erred in not recusing itself sua sponte; nothing in the record reveals evidence of bias or prejudice towards defendant, and he offers no reason to believe the jury would have reached a contrary result with a different judge; where defendant was charged with both financial crimes and immigration offenses arising out of his meatpacking business, the district court did not err in scheduling the financial trial first; no error in allowing the introduction of evidence of immigration violations to show defendant's company had broken a law, statute or regulation in violation of its loan agreement with its lender; jury instructions on the elements of fraud and on the offense of harboring illegal aliens were not erroneous; money laundering convictions did not merge with any other crimes; amount of fraud loss was properly calculated; district court properly weighed the 3553(a) factors in setting sentence, and it did not impose a substantively unreasonable 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.