Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-13-04595/USCOURTS-ca3-13-04595-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jean A. Seraphin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 13-4595

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JEAN A. SERAPHIN,

Appellant

________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Criminal Action No. 2-10-cr-00229-004)

District Judge: Honorable Maurice B. Cohill, Jr.

________________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

January 12, 2015

Before: AMBRO, FUENTES, and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed January 29, 2015)

________________

OPINION*

________________

AMBRO, Circuit Judge

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 13-4595 Document: 003111861270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2015
2

On March 3, 2010, Appellant Jean A. Seraphin as well as Brent Hercules Antoine, 

Richard G. Foster and Ramar Gardiner went on a shopping spree in Southwestern 

Pennsylvania. In all, they visited five Walmarts, nine Giant Eagle grocery stores, and 

two GetGo convenience stores. The group’s principal aim was to obtain merchandise 

worth thousands of dollars using fraudulently procured credit cards. 

The group’s “carding” scheme was going along without a hitch until they reached 

the Walmart in Bethel Park. At that location, both Foster and Antoine separately tried to 

purchase several gift cards and electronics. Both attempts were unsuccessful. Foster, for 

his part, looked to purchase a $1,500 Walmart gift card, but all of the credit cards he 

submitted for payment were declined. Then Antoine, in another part of the store, offered 

seven different credit cards to purchase two iPods and two laptops. But the cashier 

cancelled the transaction because the signature on the seventh card appeared suspect. 

After the pair left, a cashier alerted area Walmarts of the suspicious transactions.

Within the hour, the group arrived at their next stop: a Walmart just down the road 

in Carnegie. Foster again attempted to purchase Walmart gift cards with a fraudulent 

credit card. And while this time the transaction was approved, he unexplainably changed 

his mind about the purchase and left the store. Close in time and true to form, another 

(but this time unidentified) man tried to purchase iPods and a notebook computer in a 

different part of the store. But none of the six cards he used went through. He declined 

the cashier’s invitation to speak to management or call his credit card company and 

instead left. According to several eyewitnesses, he appeared nervous. 

Case: 13-4595 Document: 003111861270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2015
3

Sensing that a carding scheme was ongoing, the loss-prevention employee at the 

Carnegie Walmart called local law enforcement and recorded the license tag of the 

minivan Foster got into. Officers arrived just in time to stop the group before they made 

their way out of the parking lot. Inside the minivan officers found four males (Antoine, 

Foster, Gardiner and Seraphin). Officers also noticed a safe in the back row, located 

between the captain seats in which Antoine and Seraphin were seated. Because none of 

the men were listed as authorized drivers in the rental agreement for the minivan, officers 

decided to impound the rental and instructed the group to remove any personal 

belongings. Notably, no one claimed ownership of the safe. 

Officers secured a warrant to search the locked safe. Inside, they found eleven 

plastic bags, each of which contained gift cards and receipts. The gift cards had all been 

purchased on the same day (March 3, 2010) and were grouped according to the store in 

which each card was bought. Also present were 39 credit cards. The credit cards were in 

the name of either Brandon Anderson or Sean Francis—neither of whom had a 

connection to any member of the group—and had been used to purchase the gift cards. 

Approximately eight months later, on November 15, 2010, and in a seemingly 

unrelated incident, Seraphin, Gardiner and another individual, Mark Daniel, were 

involved in a border search near the Canada-New York border, on the Canadian side of 

the Peace Bridge. A federal agent learned that the search revealed brand new 

merchandise without receipts and that Daniel was in possession of five counterfeit credit 

cards. Among the products found inside were: (a) four iPod Touches in their original 

wrapping; (b) three iPads; (c) a printout listing the location of western New York 

Case: 13-4595 Document: 003111861270 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/29/2015
4

Walmarts; (d) 33 gift cards; (e) five X-box games; (e) two lap-top computers; (f) 10 cell 

phones; and (g) two counterfeit checks. The agent conducting the search also learned 

that Seraphin and Gardiner were the subject of a pending credit card investigation in 

Pittsburgh.

Seraphin and Antoine were ultimately charged with: (1) conspiracy to engage in 

access device fraud; (2) possession of 15 or more counterfeit or unauthorized access 

devices; and (3) three counts of aggravated identify theft. They were tried jointly and 

convicted on all counts. (Foster and Gardiner were charged with slightly different crimes 

and entered guilty pleas.) The District Court sentenced Seraphin to 36 months’ 

imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release. 

Seraphin raises two arguments on appeal: that the District Court abused its 

discretion in allowing the Government to introduce evidence of the Peace Bridge 

incident; and that there was insufficient evidence at trial to convict him of the crimes for 

which he was charged. 

Seraphin contends that evidence of the Peace Bridge incident had “no logical 

connection” to the crimes he was being tried for and was introduced only to paint him as 

a criminal. In support, he highlights a passage from the Government’s closing argument 

where it stressed the unlikelihood that Seraphin could have found himself in two 

strikingly similar situations without engaging in any wrongdoing:

Wow. How unique. Gardner [sic] is driving the car on the Peace Bridge 

in New York eight months after this happened in March 2010. 

November 2010, eight months later, we see Gardner [sic] and Seraphin 

together again in a car and what’s in that car? Counterfeit checks, 

electronic merchandise, two laptop computers. 

Case: 13-4595 Document: 003111861270 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/29/2015
5

Wait a minute. If he didn’t have bad luck, he wouldn’t have no luck at 

all. What are the odds? Now its not evidence - - well, we are not saying 

that [because] he was caught later on in Buffalo, he must have been 

doing it in Pittsburgh, but it is evidence for you to consider he intended 

to have a conspiracy eight months earlier with these guys.

Our analysis of Seraphin’s argument unfolds in two steps. Was evidence of the 

Peace Bridge incident admitted for a proper purpose under Federal Rule of Evidence 

404(b)? If it was, we assess whether its probative value was substantially outweighed by 

its prejudicial effect. 

Under Rule 404(b), the Government can’t offer evidence of a defendant’s bad acts 

to impugn his character or suggest he has a penchant for committing certain crimes. See

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). The same evidence is, however, admissible if it is introduced to 

rebut the assertion that defendant’s “association with criminal co-conspirators was wholly 

innocent” or that he was “‘merely present’ at the scene of criminal activity without guilty 

knowledge or intent.” United States v. Rodriguez, 215 F.3d 110, 119 (1st Cir. 2000). 

We are convinced that the evidence of the Peace Bridge incident belongs in the 

latter box, principally because it was introduced to give the jury a reason to view 

Seraphin’s defense with more than a shade of skepticism and in turn “conclude that he 

was a knowing and intentional participant in the crimes charged in the indictment.” Id. 

For similar reasons—and because of the circumstantial nature of the Government’s 

case—its probative value was significant.

We highlight that the District Court’s limiting instruction—given twice—

mitigated any prejudice. Both times, the Court admonished the jury to consider the 

Case: 13-4595 Document: 003111861270 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/29/2015
6

evidence only for the dual purpose of determining whether there was a relationship 

between Seraphin and Gardiner and whether he had the knowledge and intent to engage 

in the charged conspiracy. Against this background, the District Court did not abuse its 

discretion and properly admitted the evidence under Rule 404(b).

Seraphin’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is on even weaker footing. 

Regarding the conspiracy count, he contends that the Government didn’t produce any 

evidence of actual guilt other than his presence in the van with the three other occupants. 

And, for the substantive counts, he contends that the evidence at trial wasn’t enough to 

convince a rational trier of fact that he either produced, used or trafficked in counterfeit 

access devices or possessed those devices.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we “review the record 

in [a] light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any rational trier of 

fact could find proof of guilt[] beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Brodie, 403 

F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2005). In doing so, we are careful not to “usurp the role of the 

jury by weighing credibility and assigning weight to the evidence, or by substituting [our] 

judgment for that of the jury.” Id. Stated another way, “[w]e must sustain the [jury’s] 

verdict if there is substantial evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the 

government, to uphold the jury’s decision[.]” United States v. Gambone, 314 F.3d 163, 

170 (3d Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 

Ample evidence supported all of Seraphin’s convictions. As to the conspiracy

count, while it is true that mere presence isn’t enough to support a finding of conspiracy, 

the evidence at trial painted a much richer picture of Seraphin’s involvement. He and the 

Case: 13-4595 Document: 003111861270 Page: 6 Date Filed: 01/29/2015
7

other three occupants all hailed from the metropolitan New York area. They were found 

in a minivan with no luggage or other belongings to suggest that they planned to be in the 

Pittsburgh area for longer than it took to pay a visit to each of the stores they visited on a 

single day. There was also no evidence to suggest that Seraphin joined the group 

midstream or that his presence in the minivan on March 3 was purely by chance. This is 

especially true in the light of the Peace Bridge incident months later. Thus, as the 

Government argues, a rational juror could conclude that Seraphin’s presence in the 

minivan was “deliberate, purposeful, and not the result of simply being in the wrong van 

on the wrong date and in the company of the wrong type of people.” 

The same reasoning applies to the substantive counts.

* * * * *

For these reasons, we affirm.

Case: 13-4595 Document: 003111861270 Page: 7 Date Filed: 01/29/2015