United States v. Reichel, No. 17-2562 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence for wire fraud, filing for bankruptcy for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud, and making false statements in relation to bankruptcy proceedings. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court erred in denying his pretrial motion to sever the wire fraud counts from the bankruptcy-related counts, and held that joinder was appropriate here because the offenses were all connected to the common scheme. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever counts for trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14; the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's post-trial motions to continue sentence and dismiss the superseding indictment; and the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sentencing enhancements for the amount of loss, use of sophisticated means, and abuse of a position of trust.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Shepherd and Stras, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The court did not err in denying defendant's pretrial motion to sever wire fraud counts from bankruptcy fraud-related counts because the offenses were all connected to a common scheme to defraud defendant's investors, and the evidence of the wire fraud was admissible as to the bankruptcy-related counts, and vice versa; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions on all counts as the government proved defendant's fraudulent intent; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's post-trial motions to continue sentence and dismiss the superseding indictment; the district court did not err in imposing sentencing enhancements under Guidelines Sec. 2B1.1(b)(1)(L) for amount of loss, Sec. 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) for sophisticated means and Sec. 3B1.3 for abuse of a position of trust.
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.