United States v. Walker, No. 14-3287 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, former president, CEO, and chairman of the board of Bixby, was convicted of four counts of mail fraud, eight counts of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, witness tampering, and three counts of tax evasion. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that defendant had the requisite intent to defraud Bixby investors; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the tax evasion counts; the district court committed no clear error in reasonably estimating the actual loss resulting from defendant’s fraud offenses as equaling the total amounts lost by Bixby investors who submitted Victim Impact Statements; the district court did not err by imposing a two-level enhancement because defendant abused a position of public or private trust under USSG 3B1.3; and, because the Commission has not made retroactive the amendments on which defendant wishes to rely, 18 U.S.C. 3742(g)(1) would apply if he were resentenced, making the requested remand a futile exercise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Murphy and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The evidence was sufficient to show defendant had the requisite intent to defraud investors; the evidence was also sufficient to support defendant's conviction for tax evasion; no error in calculating the amount of the investor's actual losses; no error in imposing an enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1 for abuse of a position of trust as defendant repeatedly used his controlling corporate trust position to conceal his massive fraud; the Sentencing Commission has not made retroactive the amendments to Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1 on which defendant relies in his argument urging a remand for resentencing; since the amendments do not apply, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(g)(1) would apply at resentencing, and a remand would be futile.
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.