Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Robey

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

August 3, 2016

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
George E. Robey, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued April 7, 2016

         Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. No. 12 CR 00027-001 - Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.

          Before Easterbrook, Kanne, and Sykes, Circuit Judges.

          Kanne, Circuit Judge.

         Defendant George Robey operated a modern-day "chop shop" -he and his associates stole cars, altered their identities using office and computer equipment, and then sold them. He was convicted by a jury and the district court sentenced him to 110 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release.

         Robey appeals his conviction and sentence on three grounds. First, he argues that he did not receive a speedy trial, in violation of the Speedy Trial Act and the Sixth Amendment. Second, Robey contends that the district court erred in allowing the government to amend the indictment by dropping nineteen of the twenty-five charges. Third, he argues that the district court erred at sentencing by finding that Robey's theft of ten vehicles, in addition to the four vehicles forming the basis of his conviction, constituted relevant conduct. We affirm.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background

         From 2009 until 2011, Robey and his associates stole cars from lots around Indianapolis, altered the cars' identities, and then sold them. As part of this operation, Robey would change a stolen car's identity by giving it a new Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN"), a unique 17-digit identification code. Robey would also create counterfeit documents to support a stolen car's new identity, which included generating a title, insurance card, sales contract, and temporary license plate. Robey created these counterfeit VINs and documents using a computer, scanner, printer, and digital image editing software.

         B. Procedural History

         Robey was arrested on a criminal complaint on December 6, 2011. Between Robey's arrest and indictment, Robey and the government jointly requested and were granted two ends-of-justice continuances to extend the pre-indictment period.

         On February 23, 2012, a grand jury returned a 25-count indictment against Robey, alleging conspiracy to identify, steal, and sell stolen vehicles for profit; trafficking in vehicles with altered VINs; making, uttering, and possessing counterfeit state securities; and identification document fraud.

         Robey made an initial appearance on the indictment on March 1, 2012. Between Robey's initial appearance and trial start date of February 10, 2015, Robey requested and was granted ten ends-of-justice continuances. Additionally, he filed several pre-trial motions, requested and received new counsel twice, underwent a psychological examination, and entered and withdrew from a plea agreement. During this period, the government also was granted one ends-of-justice continuance.

         On December 29, 2014, the government moved to dismiss nineteen of the twenty-five counts in the indictment, reducing the charges against Robey to six remaining counts-four counts of trafficking in vehicles with altered VINs, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2321; and two counts of making, uttering, and possessing counterfeit state securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513(a). The district court granted this motion.

         Robey also filed two motions to dismiss. On December 31, 2014, Robey filed his first motion to dismiss, arguing that his speedy trial right had been violated, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(c)(1), 3162, because his case had not been tried within 70 days of his initial appearance. The district court denied Robey's motion on January 5, 2015, finding that only 28 days had elapsed on Robey's pre-trial speedy trial clock. On January 28, 2015, Robey filed his second motion to dismiss, again alleging violation of his right to a speedy trial. The district court denied this motion on February 6, 2015.

         Robey's three-day trial began on February 10, 2015. The jury saw and heard evidence that Robey had, for four stolen vehicles, altered the VINs, created counterfeit vehicle documents, and sold the vehicles, including one sale to an undercover agent. The jury convicted Robey of all six counts on February 12, 2015.

         On May 20, 2015, the district court held Robey's sentencing hearing. The revised presentence investigation report ("PSR") concluded that, in addition to the four vehicles that were the focus of the trial, another ten stolen vehicles constituted "relevant conduct." The evidence found in Robey's home showed that, as with the four cars that made up his conviction, he had altered the VINs and created counterfeit documents for these other ten cars. The total value of the fourteen cars-four that constituted Robey's conviction and ten deemed relevant conduct-exceeded $400, 000. This loss amount increased Robey's offense level by 14, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 2B1.1(b)(1), (H) (2014).

         At sentencing, Robey contested the total value of the cars, arguing that the ten uncharged cars should not be considered relevant conduct. The district court ruled that the evidence found during the search of Robey's home confirmed a pattern of common conduct sufficient to establish the ten additional vehicles as relevant conduct. Adopting the PSR, the district court determined Robey's guidelines range was 110 to 137 months' imprisonment, based on an adjusted offense level of 26 and criminal history category of V. After taking into account Robey's age and infirmity, the court imposed a within-guidelines sentence of 110 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release, with the standard conditions and some discretionary conditions. Judgment was entered against Robey on May 27, 2015. Robey appealed.

         II. Analysis

         Robey appeals his conviction and sentence on three main grounds. First, he claims that he did not receive a speedy trial, in violation of the Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment. Second, Robey contends that the district erred in allowing the government to amend the indictment by dropping nineteen of the twenty-five charges. Third, he argues that the district court erred at sentencing by ruling that Robey's theft of ten vehicles, in addition to the four vehicles that form the basis of his conviction, constituted relevant conduct.

         A. Speedy ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.