Marc Seitles' Recent Victories
Dr. Shaygan was charged with 141 counts of illegally prescribing medication outside the scope of his medical license. He was also facing a minimum mandatory 20 year sentence because of the death of one of his patients who died of an alleged methadone overdose. Mr. Seitles was part of the defense team led by nationally recognized defense attorney, David Oscar Markus.
During the five-week trial, Mr. Seitles called almost a dozen of Dr. Shaygan’s patients as witnesses to explain to the jury that Dr. Shaygan was a caring doctor who always acted in good faith to help his patients. The defense team also called several well-known expert medical examiners and pain experts, including Dr. Michael Baden, to support their defense that Dr. Shaygan was acting in good faith and did not cause the death of his patient.
The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all 141 counts in less than four hours.
Back to Top
United States v. Terrance Frederick
Marc convinces federal magistrate judge to vacate his client’s sentence on a 2255 motion and order a new sentencing hearing. Marc challenged the sentence under the “actual innocence” doctrine in light of Begay and Archer.
Motion to vacate prior sentence granted.
Back to Top
United States v. Dwayne Eason
Mr. Seitles wins re-sentencing for client! Former counsel was deemed ineffective by federal judge after hearing Mr. Seitles' arguments in 2255 habeas motion. Judge agrees that prior conviction for carrying a concealed firearm should not be used to enhance defendant's sentence.
Motion to vacate prior sentence granted.
Back to Top
United States v. Roger Shutts
Mr. Shutts, a Vietnam veteran, was charged with attempting to travel to Costa Rica to engage in sex with a minor, a charge with a mandatory ten-year prison sentence.
Days before trial, Mr. Seitles convinced the government to waive the minimum mandatory sentence. The government instead offered Mr. Shutts a lesser charge with a federal guideline imprisonment range of 46 to 57 months.
At sentencing, Mr. Seitles argued against prison time for Mr. Shutts. Mr. Seitles, through the testimony of several character witnesses and a psychiatrist, presented evidence that Mr. Shutts was a hard-working lumberer who was naive and easily manipulated, had no characteristics of a person interested in minors, had suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrom, and who had been in the middle of a horrible divorce at the time of his arrest.
The Judge sentenced Mr. Shutts to five years probation.
Back to Top
United States v. Evelio Conde
Mr. Conde was charged with several counts of money laundering and drug trafficking.
The government presented evidence that Mr. Conde and his co-defendant were previously arrested in traffic stops with more than $600,000 and on recorded conversations with a confidential government informant discussing a 100 kilogram cocaine deal. The government arrested Mr. Conde two days later in a co-defendants home with $360,000 in a shoe box.
Mr. Seitles explained to the jury that possessing money, even large amounts of concealed currency, is not money laundering under federal law. Then Mr. Seitles challenged the government to call the confidential informant and their lead case agents as witnesses at trial. The government refused.
Mr. Seitles argued that the government was hiding facts from the Jury, and that the confidential informant was "double dealing" by selling drugs on the side, that he was previously "de-activated" (fired) by local law enforcement, and that he could not be trusted.
The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty on all charges.
Back to Top
United States v. Arturo & Armando Reyes (Acambaro Restaurants)
Mr. Seitles' convinces federal prosecutors to drop alien smuggling and money laundering charges against the owners of Acambaro Mexican Restaurant chain. Case resolves in misdemeanor pleas and no mandatory deportation for his clients.
As a result, Acambaro remains a successful Mexican Restaurant chain in Northwest Arkansas and Missouri.
Back to Top
United States v. Carlos Pujol
Mr. Pujol was charged along with 21 other co-defendants with conspiring to distribute crack cocaine. Many of the other co-defendant were sentenced to lengthy prison sentences. Mr. Seitles persuasively argued that the crack guidelines were too severe, that his client was a first-time non-violent offender who supported his wife and disabled child, and that he remained gainfully employed before and after his arrest.
The Judge sentenced Mr. Pujol to five years probation. He was the only defendant not be sentenced to federal prison.
Back to Top
United States v. Niurka Luaces-Ferray
Ms. Lucases-Ferray was charged conspiring to import hundreds of pounds of marijuana into the United States by boat. She was arrested on the high seas with her co-defendant who was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. Mr. Seitles persuasively argued that his client was the sole breadwinner and caretaker of her family, that she survived an abusive and traumatic adolescence, and that she had a strong proven work ethic.
The Judge sentenced Ms. Luaces-Ferray to five years probation.
Back to Top
In the Matter of the Extradition of Ram Nandwani
Indian businessman Ram Nandwani was accused of bankruptcy fraud with his brothers when their once successful electronics business failed in 2002. Panama alleged that the Mr. Nandwani defrauded multi-national banks out of millions of dollars.
Mr. Seitles and co-counsel David Oscar Markus successfully argued that the the statute of limitations had elapsed and that Panama was seeking extradition for a crime not listed in the Treaty between the United States and Panama ("Dual Criminality Doctrine").
The Judge denied the extradition of Ram Nandwani to Panama.
United States v. Barbara Walden
Ms.Walden was charged in a multi-defendant crack cocaine conspiracy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Ms. Walden faced a minimum mandatory sentence of 20 years if convicted because she had a prior drug conviction.
The government alleged that Ms. Walden traveled with the lead defendant to retrieve multiple kilograms of cocaine and that she paid for his wireless service which was used to facilitate drug transactions.
Mr. Seitles informed the government that Ms. Walden was an ex-boyfriend of the main defendant but that she had no specific knowledge of his drug dealing activities. Moreover, Mr. Seitles explained that there was no evidence his client knew that the lead defendant was going to purchase cocaine on the day they were driving together. Nor was there sufficient evidence that Ms. Walden had ever conspired to purchase, sell or aid and abet in a drug case.
The Judge dismissed all criminal charges against Ms. Walden.
United States v. Gilberto Rodriguez-Orejuela & Miguel Rodriguez-Orejuela
Mr. Seitles represents the 28 family members of the former heads of the Cali Cartel. Mr. Seitles negotiated an unprecedented agreement for his clients resulting in immunity from prosecution in the United States and Colombia for several family members.
In addition, the Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") will remove all 28 family members from the infamous Clinton list and ensure that they will no longer be listed as Specially Designated Narcotraffickers.
Moreover, this agreement will not require either the heads of the Cali Cartel or the family members to cooperate against any person in a criminal prosecution in the United States or Colombia.
State of Florida v. Dr. Gabriel Cubillos
In a case covered by Channel 4 news in Miami, Florida, Dr. Gabriel Cubillos, a well-known Colombian plastic surgeon, was charged with the unlicensed practice of medicine. The case stemmed from complaints from a disgruntled patient who traveled to Bogota, Colombia for plastic surgery procedures.
Mr. Seitles was able to demonstrate that the criminal charges lodged against Dr. Cubillos by the State of Florida were baseless and unwarranted.
The Judge dismissed all criminal charges against Dr. Cubillos.State of Florida v. Richard Rodriguez
Mr. Rodriguez was charged by the perjury, possession of a stolen driver's license, and making false statements. Essentially, the State argued that Mr. Rodriguez was committing identity theft.
Mr. Seitles vehemently argued to state prosecutors that the arresting agent was mistaken and that his client had no intent to commit any fraud. Rather, Mr. Rodriguez sought to clear up prior issues he had with the use of his name. Mr. Seitles presented
his case through documentary evidence and witness statements.
The Judge dismissed all charges against Mr. Rodriguez.
United States v. Harold Daniel
Mr. Daniel was charged with smuggling almost $20,000 into the United States. The Government alleged that Mr. Daniel purposely sought to evade the currency reporting requirements.
Mr. Seitles argued that Mr. Daniel, of Haitian descent, did not fully understand the customs form he erroneously filled out and that he had no intent to defraud the United States. Mr. Seitles proved that even the magistrate judge recognized Mr. Daniel's difficulty with the English language.
The Judge dismissed all criminal charges against Mr. Daniel.
United States v. Jean Lindor
Mr. Lindor was charged in a multi-codefendant indictment with conspiring to commit mortgage fraud. Mr. Lindor was alleged to have defrauded HUD out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Government was seeking a lengthy prison sentence.
At sentencing, Mr. Seitles demonstrated that Mr. Lindor did not profit financially compared to the amount of loss he was being held responsible for and that he was manipulated by the leaders of the conspiracy. Mr. Seitles also passionately argued that the court should consider several significant mitigating factors including the fact the his client ran an orphanage in Haiti and paid for the education of a young woman whose family was murdered.
The Judge sentenced Mr. Lindor to five years probation.
United States v. Kevin Dunn
Mr. Dunn was charged with knowingly possessing and distributing child pornography.
Mr. Dunn, a citizen of the United Kingdom, was working as a crew member on a Carnival Cruise Line's ship. When the ship arrived at the Port of Miami, law enforcement searched Mr. Dunn's belongings after a tip from London, England that he was in possession of child pornography.
Thereafter, federal agents discovered hundreds of images of child pornography on Mr. Dunn's laptop and upon arrest, he confessed to having downloaded and transmitted such images. However, questions arose about whether the government had jurisdiction to bring federal charges in the United States.
The Judge dismissed all criminal charges against Mr. Dunn.
United States v. Bryan Henry Green
Mr. Green was charged with smuggling more than $45,000 of US currency into the United States. The Government alleged that Mr. Green purposely sought to evade the United States currency reporting requirements.
Mr. Seitles argued that Mr. Green was a legitimate businessman who was working in Saudi Arabia and traveling in transit to Brazil where he owned a home. Mr. Seitles was able to demonstrate that Mr. Green never lied to immigration agents while being searched.
The Judge dismissed all criminal charges against Mr. Green and his money was returned to him.
United States v. Frank Jesus Onetti
Mr. Onetti was sentenced in absentia to six months in jail for misuse of a social security card as he failed to appear at his sentencing hearing. Mr. Onetti was arrested for failing to appear at his sentencing just weeks before his son's Bone Marrow Transplant.
Mr. Seitles explained that Mr. Onetti's son, Brenertt Onetti was diagnosed with Leukemia in 2001 and because he feared that he would be imprisoned or deported he failed to appear. Mr. Seitles argued that Mr. Onetti was not your average fugitive, but rather a man who was working 22 hour days to pay for his child's medical care.
Bond was granted a Mr. Onetti was present during his son's Bone Marrow Transplant.
The same federal judge later granted Mr. Seitles' habeas motion (known as a 2255).
The Judge re-sentenced Mr. Onetti to three years probation.
United States v. Jose Luis Rojas Sarabia
Mr. Sarabia was accused of smuggling a large sum of United States currency into the country by lying on a customs declaration form and providing false information to border patrol agents. The Government alleged that Mr. Sarabia lied five different times.
Mr. Seitles demonstrated through the cross-examination of Government witnesses that the United States Customs Agents' stories were inconsistent and that Mr. Sarabia had no motive to lie. Mr. Seitles vigorously argued that Mr. Sarabia was a legitimate Colombian businessman who did not intentionally seek to avoid the United States currency reporting requirements.
The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty in less than two hours.
United States v. Carla Lima Silva
Ms. Silva was accused of attempting to enter the United States with a false American visa. Agents testified that Ms. Silva admitted that she had previously entered the United Stated illegally and had worked without legal documents.
Mr. Seitles was able to demonstrate that Ms. Silva reasonably relied on the promise of a Brazilian attorney that he could secure her a valid visa. Mr. Seitles explained to the jury that no person in a post 9/11 world would leave the United States unless they believed they could legally reenter the country. In summation, Mr. Seitles passionately argued that Ms. Silva did not know her visa was false and had no reason to lie.
The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty in three hours.
United States v. Kenneth Golding
Mr. Golding, a cruise ship employee, was accused of attempting to possess and distribute ten kilograms of cocaine. While exiting a service elevator Mr. Golding was arrested by DEA agents as he stood next to a box containing cocaine. Mr. Golding provided a written confession.
Mr. Seitles demonstrated through the cross-examination of Government agents that the DEA agents' stories were "embellished" and not believable. Mr. Seitles argued to the jury that Mr. Golding's statement was coerced as he believed that he would return to Jamaica by signing a confession.
The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty in four hours.
United States v. Angel Aybar
Mr. Aybar, designated as an Armed Career Criminal, was accused of being a felon in possession of a weapon. He faced a minimum mandatory of fifteen years to life imprisonment.
Mr. Seitles filed a motion to suppress and argued to a federal magistrate judge that Mr. Aybar's Miranda rights were violated. On cross examination, Mr. Seitles demonstrated that the arresting United States Marshall did not ask Mr. Aybar whether he wanted an attorney after Mr. Aybar stated that he thought he needed one. He also was able to prove that a Miami-Dade Detective performed an expansive search of Mr. Aybar's hotel room without a warrant.
The federal judge granted Mr. Seitles' Motion to Suppress because of his constitutional right to counsel was violated.
The Judge dismissed all criminal charges against Mr. Aybar.
United States v. Sigifredo Villada
Mr. Villada was accused of transporting more than ten kilograms of cocaine in his truck. Mr. Seitles used the famous phrase from the Wendy's commercial "where is the beef" to successfully defend his client. Mr. Seitles explained to the jury that Mr. Villada was innocently helping a friend and was otherwise employed as a furniture mover.
The jury's verdict was split. Nevertheless, Mr. Seitles and his defense team moved for judgment of acquittal on all counts. Based on the evidence presented by Mr. Seitles, the federal district judge agreed.
The Judge entered a judgment of acquittal and Mr. Villada was released from jail.
United States vs. Cesar Alonso-Bernate
Mr. Alonso-Bernate was charged with attempting to enter the United States with a false passport and visa. Mr. Seitles persuasively argued to the Government that Mr. Alonso-Bernate arrived to the United States with a false document for the sole purpose of seeking poltical asylum.
Mr. Seitles provided the Government with documentation to support his client's cause, including evidence that Mr. Alonso-Bernate had been kidnapped while in Colombia and that his uncle had been granted political asylum by the United States Government in 2003.
The Judge dismissed all criminal charges against Mr. Alonso-Bernate.