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.