Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-11394/USCOURTS-ca11-19-11394-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Isaiah Meme
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-11394

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20760-CMA-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff–Appellee,

 versus

ISAIAH MEME, 

 Defendant–Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(March 13, 2020)

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 1 of 12
2

Isaiah Meme was convicted of access device fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1029(a)(2); aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1); 

and possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). He appeals these convictions. On appeal, Meme argues that 

there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm Meme’s convictions.

BACKGROUND

Because Meme appeals his conviction, specifically arguing that the evidence 

was insufficient to support a conviction, we review the evidence that was presented 

at trial in some detail. Isaiah Meme was indicted on September 18, 2018, in a 

multiple-count indictment alleging 1 count of access device fraud, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §1029(a)(2) (Count 1); 6 counts of aggravated identity theft, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (Counts 2–5, 7–8); and 1 count of possession of 15 or 

more unauthorized access devices, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) (Count 

6). On the second day of trial, the district court granted the government’s motion 

to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 on the grounds that Meme may have been a minor when 

the offenses were committed.

Testimony at trial revealed the following. Robert Novakowski, an 

investigator with JPMorgan Chase Bank, was investigating compromised debit 

cards following customer complaints. Novakowski received a list of compromised 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 2 of 12
3

debit cards and a list of transactions for those cards and obtained video surveillance 

of the person making the transactions. He testified that images captured on driveup ATM cameras showed that Meme was making transactions with cards 

belonging to other people and with counterfeit payment cards. Some of those 

images showed Meme making transactions while driving a black Ford Mustang 

with a bumper sticker. Novakowski sought the assistance of law enforcement in 

identifying the person in the videos and images, and U.S. Secret Service Agent 

Sterling Posten identified that person as Meme. Novakowski conceded that he 

could not see the eye shape or eye color of the person in the images, but that the 

person had the same face as Meme and that he independently reviewed all photos 

and videos and, in so doing, was able to identify Meme as the person making the 

transactions.

Secret Service Agent Greg Narano testified that the Secret Service had 

obtained surveillance of people conducting unauthorized ATM withdrawals, one of 

whom was Meme. Accordingly, the Secret Service set up surveillance on several 

ATMs in an attempt to locate a black Mustang that was connected to some of these 

unauthorized withdrawals. While conducting surveillance, Narano saw a person 

driving a black Mustang with a bumper sticker use an ATM. Narano maintained 

surveillance, identified the person in the car as Meme, and took several photos of 

him. He followed Meme to Meme’s father’s house and continued his surveillance. 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 3 of 12
4

Narano conceded in cross-examination that the Mustang was not registered in 

Meme’s name, that Meme’s father owned the house, and that, based on his 

surveillance at the ATM, he was unable to determine the build of the person in the 

car or whether that person had facial hair. On redirect, he emphasized that he was 

able to identify the person in the Mustang as Meme because he had an 

unobstructed view of Meme’s face at one point.

Secret Service Agent Ken Adams testified to the following. He, like 

Narano, was assigned to conduct surveillance at a Chase Bank ATM, saw a black 

Mustang pull up to the ATM, watched the driver commit a fraudulent transaction, 

identified the driver as Meme, and followed Meme to Meme’s father’s house. He 

also participated in Meme’s arrest, after which he recovered two cell phones from 

the Mustang. On cross-examination, Adams conceded that there were no debit 

cards, credit cards, or large amounts of cash in the car when Meme was arrested.

Agent Posten then testified. He executed a search warrant of Meme’s 

father’s house and in one bedroom, recovered five plastic cards, a laptop, a 

firearm-training certificate in Meme’s name, several pieces of unopened mail, and 

high school textbooks. Accordingly, Posten concluded that the bedroom belonged 

to Meme. In a room that he concluded belonged to Meme’s brother, he recovered 

a plastic card, a personal check not belonging to anybody living in the house, a 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 4 of 12
5

money order, and a re-encoded plastic card.1 In the living room of the house, 

Posten found a vehicle title belonging to Meme and traffic citations issued to 

Meme. He also found other pieces of mail, like bank records, that did not belong 

to anyone in the house—which he concluded was an indication of fraud taking 

place in the house. Posten conceded that the Mustang was a rental vehicle that was 

not rented by Meme; that according to the Florida Department of Highway Safety 

and Motor Vehicles, Meme did not live with his father; and that none of the cards 

in Meme’s bedroom had been re-encoded.

Secret Service Agents Marcos Morales and Allen Thomasson testified that 

they had analyzed the phones recovered during Meme’s arrest. Morales 

discovered that one of the phones was registered to a user identified as 

“MasonM1267.” Thomasson’s analysis of the text messages in the phones 

revealed that one of the phones had received text messages that identified the 

recipient (and thus, the phone owner) as Meme. He also reviewed the email 

account on the phone and discovered several emails received by an account 

belonging to “MasonM1267” and several emails containing credit and debit card 

1 In this context, re-encoding a plastic card serves to change the data on the card—in other words, 

from what source the card pulled funds or registered transactions—so that it no longer matched 

the information embossed on the card, e.g., the name or displayed number. See, e.g., United States 

v. Cruz, 713 F.3d 600, 608 (11th Cir. 2013) (discussing re-encoding credit and debit cards). Reencoding cards is frequently charged as a violation of section 1029(a)(3), which prohibits the 

knowing, and with intent to defraud, possession of “devices which are counterfeit or unauthorized 

access devices.” E.g., United States v. Grimon, 923 F.3d 1302, 1306–1307 (11th Cir. 2019) (citing 

18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3).

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 5 of 12
6

numbers. Thomasson also found data on the phone showing that the phone’s 

owner had visited commercial background search websites (which are frequently 

used for identity theft and fraud) and disposable email service websites.

On the other phone, Thomasson also found information that identified Meme 

as the account owner—the phone had sent a picture of Meme’s driver’s license and 

the received texts referred to the phone’s owner as Meme. He also discovered 

pictures of the Mustang, email accounts registered to “MasonM1267,” debit card 

numbers and personal identification numbers, and correspondence relating to 

purchasing debit card numbers and PINs on the phone, and that the phone had 

visited commercial background search websites and websites for selling stolen 

card numbers.

Thomasson also testified that he analyzed the laptop recovered from what 

Posten had identified as Meme’s room. He discovered that the computer’s user 

account was “MasonM1627.” He also found credit card and debit card numbers, 

the card-owners’ personal information, software used to read and encode magnetic 

strips in cards, software used to read and encode card microchips, bank 

identification numbers, and bank routing numbers on the computer. All told, 

Thomasson estimated that hundreds of individuals’ personal information and 120 

different debit and credit card numbers were on Meme’s laptop. He also 

discovered that the user of the laptop had visited websites selling credit card 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 6 of 12
7

numbers and commercial background search websites. On cross-examination, he 

conceded that he could not tell whether someone other than Meme had used the 

laptop and phones.

After the government rested its case, Meme moved for a judgment of 

acquittal. He argued that the government had failed to prove the existence of some 

of the victims named in the indictment, venue was improper, and some of the 

alleged criminal acts occurred while he was a minor. The district court denied 

Meme’s motion.

Meme’s case solely consisted of calling his stepmother, Willaine Amedee, 

who testified that Meme had never lived in his father’s house or kept any 

belongings in the house. Meme rested, and then renewed his motion for a 

judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. The district court again 

denied his motion.

The jury found Meme guilty of Counts 1 and 4–8. The district court 

sentenced Meme to a 39-month prison term, which consisted of 15-month 

concurrent sentences on Counts 1 and 6 and a 24-month sentence on Counts 4–5 

and 7–8. Meme timely appealed to us.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Meme argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his 

conviction. We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, “viewing the 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 7 of 12
8

evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable 

inferences in favor of the verdict.” United States v. Schier, 438 F.3d 1104, 1107 

(11th Cir. 2006). The district court’s denial of “motions for a judgment of acquittal 

will be upheld if a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the evidence 

establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. 

Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243, 1244 (11th Cir. 2000). “[T]he issue is not whether a 

jury reasonably could have acquitted but whether it reasonably could have found 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,” so we will not reverse a conviction solely 

because the defendant “put forth a reasonable hypothesis of innocence” at trial. 

United States v. Campo, 840 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). 

We are bound by a jury’s “rejection of the inferences raised by the defendant.” 

United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1334–35 (11th Cir. 2005). 

Furthermore, we consider all evidence produced at trial against the defendant in 

evaluating his claim of insufficient evidence. United States v. Thomas, 8 F.3d 

1552, 1558 n.12 (11th Cir. 1993). 

An individual is guilty of access device fraud when he “knowingly and with 

intent to defraud traffics in or uses one or more unauthorized access devices during 

any one-year period, and by such conduct obtains anything of value aggregating 

$1,000 or more during that period.” 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2). An individual is 

guilty of possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices if he possesses such 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 8 of 12
9

devices knowingly and with intent to defraud. Id. § 1029(a)(3). An individual is 

guilty of aggravated identity theft when he “knowingly transfers, possesses, or 

uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person” during 

a felony violation of, among other things, “any provision contained in this chapter” 

relating to fraud. Id. §§ 1028A(a)(1), (c)(4). An “‘access device’ means any card, 

. . . account number, electronic serial number, . . . personal identification number, 

. . . or other means of account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with 

another access device, to obtain money . . . or that can be used to initiate a transfer 

of funds.” Id. § 1029(e)(1). An “‘unauthorized access’ device means any access 

device that is lost, stolen, . . . or obtained with intent to defraud.” Id. § 1029(e)(3).

We read Meme’s arguments on appeal as essentially arguing for a more 

favorable inference of the facts. He argues that fraud was taking place at his 

father’s house (but he was not a part of it), that the Secret Service agents could not 

identify who used the phones or computer, that the ATM surveillance photos were 

poor-quality and did not lend themselves to identification, that no one described 

the physical characteristics of the person who was using the access devices, that 

Novakowski’s identification of him was tainted, and that no counterfeit access 

devices were found in his “actual or constructive possession.”

These arguments are unavailing. These arguments echo what Meme argued 

at trial—both to the district court and to the jury in his arguments for acquittal—

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 9 of 12
10

and the jury was entitled to reject those arguments and draw a different inference. 

We are not able to revisit the inference that the jury drew. Hernandez, 433 F.3d at

1334–35. In any event, we conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to 

support Meme’s conviction for two reasons: (1) the phone and laptop evidence 

showed that Meme was committing access device fraud and (2) Meme was 

identified as the person committing access device fraud. We address each in turn.

First, the testimony at trial clearly showed—although somewhat 

circumstantially—that Meme was committing access device fraud. With regard to 

the phones, the agents testified that Meme visited commercial background search 

websites and websites where he could purchase stolen card numbers, had stolen 

card numbers stored on his phones, and had correspondence relating to his 

purchase thereof. The agents found similar evidence on Meme’s laptop. 

Meme does not, and cannot, seriously contest the evidence found on both 

devices—and so he instead suggests that other people were using the devices. We 

wholly reject this argument, because it requires us to substitute the jury’s 

reasonable inference based on the evidence presented at trial for an unreasonable 

inference that happens to be more favorable to Meme. We think it is clear that the 

devices both belonged to, and were used by, Meme. Contrary to Meme’s 

argument, the phones were found in his “actual or constructive possession,” i.e., 

the car he was driving at the time he was arrested. And while the laptop was found 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 10 of 12
11

in a room that Agent Posten had merely identified as Meme’s room, the evidence 

certainly supports an inference that the room was Meme’s. His argument that he 

did not live in the house, and thus that the room was not his, is strongly 

contradicted by the extent to which his belongings were found both in the room 

and elsewhere in the house. It is not likely that Meme’s firearm-training 

certificate, vehicle title, and traffic citations would be in a house where he did not 

live. Finally, we find it significant that the user account on Meme’s laptop was 

identical to the username of the email accounts on Meme’s phones.

Second, Meme was identified as the person committing identity fraud. 

Though it is true that Novakowski’s identification was at least partially predicated 

on Agent Posten’s suggestion, we note that he testified that he independently 

reviewed all of the videos and images of the fraudulent ATM transactions and he 

provided an in-court identification of Meme. As we have explained previously, 

“[a]n in-court identification, even if preceded by a suggestive out-of-court 

identification procedure, is nevertheless admissible if the in-court identification has 

an independent source.” United States v. Cannington, 729 F.2d 702, 711 (11th Cir.

1984).

But even if we concluded that Novakowski’s identification of Meme was 

impermissible, we note that there are two additional—and more persuasive—

witnesses who identified Meme. Both Agents Adams and Narano identified Meme 

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 11 of 12
12

as the person in the black Mustang who made fraudulent transactions at an ATM. 

Their identification is significant—both were surveilling him and followed him to 

his father’s house, and Adams participated in Meme’s arrest.

Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support 

Meme’s conviction. The evidence as to the devices—both the phones in Meme’s 

constructive possession at the time of his arrest and the laptop that was clearly 

Meme’s—is persuasive evidence of Meme’s fraud. And the identification of 

Meme, especially the eyewitness testimony of Secret Service agents who saw

Meme committing access device fraud, is even more persuasive. We reject 

Meme’s arguments to the contrary.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 19-11394 Date Filed: 03/13/2020 Page: 12 of 12