USA v. Janio Vico

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Janio Vico and Jharildan Vico. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. 16-10484X. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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 of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, mail fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, conspiracy to commit money laundering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and money laundering, in violation of 18 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