132670P.pdf   02/20/2015  United States  v.  Steven Maxwell
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-2670
                          and No:  13-2671
                          and No:  13-2730
                          and No:  13-2731
                          and No:  13-2874
                          and No:  13-2926
                          and No:  13-3432
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - St. Paul   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Beam and Colloton, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal Case - Criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient to 
   support defendants' convictions for bank fraud conspiracy; evidence was 
   sufficient to support defendant Burks' conviction for aiding and abetting 
   bank fraud by causing the passing of counterfeit checks; no error in 
   admitting evidence of Burks' state conviction for theft by swindle; 
   evidence was sufficient to support defendant Powell's convictions for 
   aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft and defendant Allen's 
   conviction for bank fraud; evidence was sufficient to support defendant 
   Hamilton's conviction for bank fraud; challenge to jury instruction 
   rejected; defendant Moore's challenge to the search warrant rejected; 
   challenges to the district court's loss calculation rejected; the court 
   did not err in determining the number of victims of the fraud by including 
   the persons whose identities were used unlawfully; defendant Maxwell's 
   sentence was not substantively unreasonable; no error in denying defendant 
   Burks' motion for a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility 
   as this was not one of those rare cases where a defendant who puts the 
   government to its proof and denies involvement in the offense warrants the 
   reduction; no error in imposing a leadership enhancement for defendant 
   Burks; the district court committed no procedural error in calculating 
   defendant Powell's sentence, and the sentence it imposed was not 
   substantively unreasonable; an evidentiary hearing was not required where 
   the district court relied on the trial evidence, rather than the PSR, in 
   making its findings on contested matters; defendant Hamilton's sentence 
   was not substantively unreasonable; there is no constitutional or 
   statutory right to simultaneously proceed pro se and by counsel.