## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Scotty Joe Uder in a multi-defendant “chop shop” and VIN-tampering scheme tied to an auto body shop in Fair Grove, Missouri.
- Uder was tried on two counts: (1) conducting operations in a chop shop, 18 U.S.C. § 2322(a)(1); and (2) VIN tampering, 18 U.S.C. § 511.
- The scheme involved “body-swinging”: placing the body of a stolen 1994 Chevrolet Suburban onto the frame of a salvaged 1993 Suburban and using the 1993 vehicle’s VIN to disguise the stolen vehicle.
- The government’s evidence, largely from cooperating co-participants, described Uder as performing specialized body work to modify the stolen vehicle so it could be mounted on the salvaged frame and facilitating the VIN transfer used to conceal the theft.
- Witnesses testified that when police presence was suspected, Uder and another worker were “waved off,” and they in turn waved off a co-participant approaching the shop, which the government argued showed awareness of illegality.
- Uder maintained he was merely doing ordinary body work and that there was no direct evidence he knew the vehicle was stolen.
- A jury convicted Uder on the chop-shop count and acquitted or did not convict him on the VIN-tampering count.
- The district court sentenced Uder to 21 months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $50 special assessment.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by informing the jury that certain government witnesses had pled guilty.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Uder knowingly conducted operations in a chop shop under 18 U.S.C. § 2322(a)(1).
3. Whether the conviction involved plain error based on an alleged double jeopardy violation.
4. Whether the district court clearly erred in denying a minor-participant reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.
5. Whether the district court’s refusal to depart downward for overstated criminal history under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 was reversible.
6. Whether the district court’s refusal to depart downward for physical impairment under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.4 was reversible.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed Uder’s conviction and sentence in full.
- The court held that referencing cooperating witnesses’ guilty pleas, with proper limiting instructions, was not reversible error.
- Applying the deferential sufficiency standard, the court found the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to infer Uder’s knowing participation in chop-shop operations.
- The court rejected the double jeopardy claim under plain-error review.
- The court upheld the denial of a minor-role reduction as not clearly erroneous.
- The court held the refusals to depart downward on criminal history and physical-impairment grounds were not reviewable because the district court understood its authority and exercised discretion.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence that a government witness pled guilty may be admitted to assist the jury in evaluating credibility and to avoid confusion, provided it is not treated as substantive proof of the defendant’s guilt and the jury is properly instructed on its limited use.
- In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and sustains the conviction if a reasonable jury could find all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, including by circumstantial proof.
- Knowledge of illegal chop-shop activity may be inferred from a defendant’s close participation in concealment-oriented work (including VIN-related conduct) and from conduct suggesting an effort to avoid law-enforcement detection.
- Unpreserved constitutional claims, including double jeopardy objections, are reviewed for plain error and require a clear, obvious error affecting substantial rights.
- Minor-role determinations under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 are fact-bound and reviewed for clear error; direct involvement in essential tasks supports denial of the adjustment.
- A district court’s discretionary refusal to depart downward under the Guidelines is generally unreviewable on appeal absent a mistaken belief that the court lacked authority to depart.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Uder’s chop-shop conviction and 21-month sentence, holding that limited use of co-defendants’ guilty pleas was permissible with instructions, the circumstantial evidence supported an inference of knowing participation in the chop-shop operation, no plain double jeopardy error was shown, and the sentencing rulings were either sound fact findings or unreviewable discretionary decisions.


United States v. Uder, 98 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 1996)