DISCLAIMER: The following unofficial case summaries are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
111285P.pdf 05/07/2012 United States v. Sylvester Gayekpar
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 11-1285
and No: 11-1333
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul
[PUBLISHED] [Colloton, Author, with Bye and Smith, Circuit Judges]
Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. District court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting evidence of prior conviction for possession of
altered obligations of the United States with intent to defraud under Rule
404(b) to prove knowledge in trial for conspiracy to possess altered
currency with intent to defraud. There was no plain error in admitting
testimony by agent. Without a limiting instruction, admission of
codefendant's statement incriminating Gayekpar plainly violated
Gayekpar's Sixth Amendment rights, but Gayekpar did not object to the
failure to give the limiting instruction and there was no reasonable
probability that a proper limiting instruction would have resulted in a
different outcome for Gayekpar and thus no plain error. Considering
totality of circumstances, Boe's waiver of rights under Miranda was
voluntary, knowing and intelligent. District court did not clearly err in
denying minor participant downward adjustment for either Gayekpar or
Boe and district court did not commit procedural error in sentence.