DocketNumber: 16-10400
Citation Numbers: 691 F. App'x 594
Judges: Tjoflat, Wilson, Robreno
Filed Date: 6/23/2017
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/6/2024
Case: 16-10400 Date Filed: 06/23/2017 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ____________________________ No. 16-10400 ___________________ D.C. Docket No. 9:15-cr-80057-RLR-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JANIO VICO, JHARILDAN VICO, Defendants-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (June 23, 2017) Before TJOFLAT and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and ROBRENO, * District Judge. * Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. Case: 16-10400 Date Filed: 06/23/2017 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Following a jury trial, Janio and Jharildan Vico were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 1349
, mail fraud, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 1341
, conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 1956
(h), and money laundering, in violation of18 U.S.C. § 1957
, and sentenced to 108 months in prison. They appeal their convictions and sentences. We have considered all of the Vicos’ specifications of error. We have reviewed the following: 1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by allowing testimony regarding Cuban ethnicity, in violation of the Vicos’ due process and equal protection rights? 2. Whether the district court plainly erred in allowing evidence of prior bad acts and improper character evidence? 3. Whether the district court plainly erred in allowing testimony from Captain Steven Smith of Florida’s Division of Insurance Fraud? 4. Whether the district court erred in its calculations regarding the loss amount and number of victims? 5. Whether the district court erred in its forfeiture determinations? 6. Whether the impact of cumulative error denied the Vicos their right to a fair trial? After careful review of the briefs and the record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error. The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2