Dooley's Hotel is located on the Quay in Waterford City, County Waterford.Public parking is possible nearby at a charge. Cancellation Information. I found Dooley's Cycles to be knowledgeable, friendly and extremely helpful, I would happily recommend them to friends and family. Dooley’s ACC Impact Has Been Profound. DOOLEY, Defendant- Appellant. No. Weinhoeft (argued), Office of the United States Attorney, Fairview Heights, IL, for Plaintiff- Appellee. Freese, Attorney (argued), Clayton, MO, for Defendant- Appellant. Mickey L. Dooley was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on charges arising out of thefts from the evidence locker of the municipal police department where he was employed. Dooley filed this timely appeal challenging both his conviction and his sentence. Dooley was a police officer employed by the Alton (Illinois) Police Department (“APD”). Dooley was the evidence custodian for the APD; in this capacity, he was responsible for collecting and processing evidence at the scenes of major crimes committed within the APD's jurisdiction. Dooley, had access cards allowing entry to the vestibule area outside the evidence vault. Dooley; the second was stored in a secure area in the administration wing of the APD. The cash locker inside the vault required another key for access; only two copies existed. Dooley and the other was stored in the secured administration wing. In June 2. 00. 6, the Olin Community Credit Union in Alton was robbed (the “OCU robbery”). Bank was robbed (the “US Bank robbery”). Dooley participated in both investigations and personally deposited the money into the APD evidence vault. Dooley's supervisor to request that evidence from the OCU robbery be turned over to the FBI for use in the federal prosecution in that case. Dooley's supervisor sent him an email to inform him that the FBI wished to retrieve that evidence the following week. Dooley's days off- surveillance cameras recorded Mr. Dooley inside the evidence vault removing the box containing evidence from the OCU robbery. On the following Monday, April 9, Special Agent Jiminez called Mr. Dooley to arrange to pick up the evidence. Dooley told Jiminez that he would provide a container in which to carry the evidence. Dooley gave her an inventory list to check off while he handled the evidence packages. Dooley placing one of the packages under another; as a result, Jiminez never examined the contents of the concealed package. Dooley then carried the evidence out to Jiminez's car. Jiminez took the evidence directly to the FBI's secure evidence room, where it remained until Friday, April 1. In response, APD Police Chief Chris Sullivan ordered an inventory of the APD evidence vault. Dooley was recorded entering the vault on both Saturday and Sunday. Bank robbery had been tampered with and that $1. Dooley. The APD then terminated its internal investigation and turned the matter over to the Illinois State Police and the FBI. Investigators performed a full audit of the APD's cash locker and discovered that a total of $3. Dooley had removed evidence, including cash, a computer and marijuana, from the scene of a death investigation. Dooley if they could search any computers he owned. Dooley told the investigators that he owned two computers, and he signed a form titled “CONSENT TO SEARCH BY OWNER,” which represented that he had ownership and authority over both computers. Bank robbery. The investigators then interviewed Mr. Dooley again and asked him if he had stolen the laptop. Dooley initially denied having stolen it; he insisted that he had bought the laptop from the Apple Store at the Galleria mall in St. Louis, Missouri, for $2,0. Dooley changed his story and admitted that he had stolen the laptop. Dooley had used the laptop to conduct a Google search on the phrase “financial ruin.” R. Further investigation revealed that Mr. Dooley was in serious financial trouble. Dooley's take- home pay totaled $3. Alton Belle Casino totaled $4. Dooley did not file a 2. October 3. 1, 2. 00. IRS. On May 2. 2, 2. Government brought an eight- count indictment against Mr. Dooley in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Dooley filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which the district court denied. After a two- week trial, a jury convicted Mr. The district court imposed an above- guidelines sentence of 1. Dooley then filed this appeal, in which he challenges the indictment, his conviction and his sentence. IIDISCUSSIONMr. Dooley raises five points of error. Sufficiency of the Evidence. Mr. Dooley submits that the evidence presented by the Government on each of the eight counts was insufficient to permit any rational trier of fact to conclude that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Hearn, 5. 34 F. 3d 7. Cir. 2. 00. 8) (alteration in original) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Dooley points to several pieces of evidence that could have provided a basis for reasonable doubt if the jury had decided to credit them. Rollins, 5. 44 F. Cir. 2. 00. 8) (“It is up to the jury to weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses; we do not second- guess the jury's assessment of the evidence.”). Dooley's Scheme (1911) on IMDb: Officer Dooley falls in love with a pretty little housemaid, only to find that Mike Doyle, the plumber, has won her consent. TIGTA: promoting integrity in the administration of internal revenue laws. The United States Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) was established. Dooley’s Florist & Gifts carries a full line of rental items for your ceremony and. Dooley's Scheme; Lingua originale: inglese: Paese di produzione: Stati Uniti d'America: Anno: 1911: Durata: 161,5 metri (split reel) Colore: B/N: Audio: muto: Rapporto. Dooley's scheme involved walking into a store empty-handed, loading a shopping cart with big-ticket items, then walking over to the returns desk to. On one of the eight counts, however, Mr. Dooley's challenge has merit. Dooley committed wire fraud in violation of 1. U. S. C. Dooley engaged in a “scheme to defraud the City of Alton Police Department and the citizens of the Southern District of Illinois out of the right to honest services of the evidence officer of the Alton Police Department to preserve the integrity of evidence being stored in connection with criminal investigations and prosecutions.” R. The indictment alleges that Mr. Dooley's scheme violated the wire fraud statute by causing an e- mail to be sent from Mr. Caltra (Galway) Message Board; Dooleys. Another clue on our Dooley's.Dooley's supervisor, David Hayes, to Mr. Dooley on April 6, 2. Dooley “to gather evidence being held in the . Dooley's “concealment of his misappropriation of evidence was incidental to an essential part of his scheme to continue his employment and further misappropriate evidence,” and adds that Mr. Dooley “knew that the F. B. I. The Government's theory is that the e- mail put Mr. Dooley on notice that the FBI would be coming to take possession of the evidence from the OCU robbery and that this information helped him conceal the fact that he had stolen most of the money from that robbery. We have held that, under certain circumstances, a communication is made “for the purpose of executing” a fraud when the communication facilitates concealment of an ongoing fraudulent scheme. Turner, 5. 51 F. 3d 6. Cir. 2. 00. 8) (“Use of the mails to lull victims into a false sense of security, we have held, violates the mail fraud statute, even if it occurs after the money has been fraudulently obtained.” 2 (quoting United States v. Brocksmith, 9. 91 F. Cir. 1. 99. 3))). Dooley on April 6, 2. Dooley that FBI Special Agent Jiminez would be coming to collect the evidence from the OCU robbery. Dooley did not send that message himself, he nevertheless “caused” it to be sent because he “acted with knowledge that the use of a wire was reasonably foreseeable.” Appellee's Br. United States v. Ratliff- White, 4. F. 3d 8. 12, 8. 18 (7th Cir. United States, 3. U. S. Dooley could foresee that Hayes would send him an e- mail directing him to get the evidence ready for pickup, he therefore “caused” the April 6 e- mail to be sent. The Government's position is based on a misreading of Pereira and an untenable reading of the wire fraud statute. To constitute a violation of these provisions, it is not necessary to show that petitioners actually mailed or transported anything themselves; it is sufficient if they caused it to be done.” (emphasis added)). Cases in this circuit and others confirm the requirement that the defendant's actions and the communication at issue must be causally connected. In each of these cases, the mailing or wire transmission on which the conviction was based either would not have occurred, or would have occurred in a substantially different form, in the absence of the defendant's fraudulent conduct. That causal connection is absent in this case. Dooley never had committed any theft, the FBI still would have asked to take possession of the OCU money in order to use it in the federal prosecution for that bank robbery, and Hayes would have sent Mr. Dooley exactly the same e- mail message asking him to prepare that evidence for the FBI. Dooley's conduct had no effect on either the existence of that wire transmission or its content. Kwiat, 8. 17 F. 2d 4. Cir. 1. 98. 7) (reversing a mail fraud conviction where “honest services would have produced the same sort of mailings” as the ones the defendants made), with United States v. Mitchell, 7. 44 F. Cir. 1. 98. 4) (affirming a mail fraud conviction where the mailings “would not have occurred except as a step in the scheme”). Because he did not transmit or cause the transmission of any interstate wire communication, Mr. Dooley is not guilty of wire fraud. Sufficiency of the Indictment. Mr. Dooley submits that the case against him should have been dismissed because the indictment was inadequate under Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Dooley contends that none of the counts in the indictment were “suffic. An indictment is sufficient if it meets three requirements: “First, it must state each element of the crimes charged; second, it must provide the defendant with adequate notice of the nature of the charges so that the accused may prepare a defense; and third, it must allow the defendant to raise the judgment as a bar to future prosecutions for the same offense.” United States v. Castaldi, 5. 47 F. Cir. 2. 00. 8) (citation omitted). Dooley appears to argue that the indictment failed to satisfy the second requirement. Dooley's claims, each of the counts in the indictment contained sufficient detail to put him on notice about the nature of the Government's accusations. Dooley “intentionally misapplied property valued at $5. R. 2. 5 at 5. The description accompanying that count does not provide specific information about the property or how it was misapplied. Fassnacht, 3. 32 F. Cir. 2. 00. 3)). Dooley has not alleged, much less proved, that he suffered any prejudice from the alleged infirmities in the indictment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |