Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02896/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02896-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lin Edward Davis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

LIN EDWARD DAVIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

OCT 2 S 1999 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 88-2896 

(D.C. No. 88-44-P) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1 

Before McKAY, BRORBY, and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. 

By indictment Lin Edward Davis was charged with ten counts of 

mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341. The gist of the several 

charges was that Davis used the United States Postal Service to 

further a scheme to defraud various rare coin companies and others 

by placing orders which were accompanied by bad checks. 2 Davis 

1 This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. lOth Cir. R. 

36.3. 

2 Although the indictment is not a part of the record on appeal, it would appear that most of the counts relate to coin 

companies and Davis' efforts to obtain valuable coins from them 

through the use of short checks. However, it would also appear 

that perhaps one count involved a company selling military 

commemoratives and that two other counts involved companies selling money market funds, and Davis' efforts to obtain interests 

therein through the use of short or no-account checks. Davis was 

Appellate Case: 88-2896 Document: 01019408261 Date Filed: 10/25/1989 Page: 1 
pled not guilty to all charges and a jury trial ensued. 

At the conclusion of the government's case, Davis moved for a 

judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. That motion was 

denied. The defendant's only witness was himself. The government 

called several rebuttal witnesses, and the case was submitted to 

the jury, which convicted Davis on all ten counts. 

The district judge sentenced Davis to imprisonment for 

twenty-eight months on counts 1, 9, and 10. On counts 2, 3, and 

4, the district judge sentenced Davis to imprisonment for one year 

to run consecutive to the sentence imposed on counts 1, 9, and 10. 

On counts 5, 6, 7, and 8 Davis was sentenced to imprisonment for 

one year to commence after the sentence imposed on counts 2, 3, 

and 4 was served. After serving all of the above sentences, Davis 

was to be placed on supervision for an additional three years. 

Davis appeals his several convictions and sentences imposed 

thereon. 

On appeal, Davis urges two grounds for reversal: (1} The 

district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal made at 

the conclusion of the government's case and, in connection 

therewith, also argues that the evidence does not support the 

jury•s verdicts: and {2) The district court erred in holding that 

Davis committed perjury when testifying and that, under the 

Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, he was "obstructing justice" which 

a resident of Oklahoma CityH Oklahoma and the companies involved 

were all out-of-state. The checks were drawn on a bank in Boston, 

Massachusetts. The orders and accompanying checks were sent 

through the United States postal service. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2896 Document: 01019408261 Date Filed: 10/25/1989 Page: 2 
justified adding "two points" under the guidelines. We are not 

persuaded by either of these arguments and therefore affirm. 

Representatives of various coin companies testified that they 

received orders through the mail for rare coins from an individual 

who identified himself as Lin Davis. Others stated that they 

received similar orders for coins from an individual identifying 

herself as Linda Johnson. In each instance the orders were accompanied by a check that turned out to be a short check. In some 

instances, the coins ordered were shipped before the checks turned 

out to be short. In other instances, the shipment of the coins 

was held up to see whether the check cleared. The shipments of 

coins, as well as requests that the short checks be made good, 

were sent to post office boxes and to a residential address in 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.3 

One government witness, a Ms. Tuggle, who was director of 

investigations for a company in Boston, Massachusetts, testified, 

inter alia, that she had talked on several occasions to a man on 

the telephone who identified himself as Lin Davis, and that on 

another occasion she had talked to a person identifying herself as 

Linda Johnson. 4 Ms. Tuggle testified that in her opinion the man 

3 The two post office 

consistently referred to 

and 1004 s.w. 48th Street. 

box numbers and residential address 

by various witnesses are 32607, 94520, 

4 The company made investigation of Davis because many accounts 

were being opened under a variety of names using one of the three 

addresses listed above or some other Oklahoma address. All of 

these accounts were opened with bad checks or with checks written 

on a money market account previously closed by the company. The company received letters and calls from a person 

identifying himself as Lin E. Davis, Linda Johnson, or as someone 

who represents Lin E. Davis. The subject of these communications 

were demands for the company to turn over money to Lin E. Davis, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2896 Document: 01019408261 Date Filed: 10/25/1989 Page: 3 
identifying himself as Lin Davis was the person who later called 

and identified himself as Linda Johnson. 

Ms. Tuggle was in the courtroom when Lin Davis testified and, 

on the basis of having heard Davis' voice, she, as a rebuttal witness, identified Davis as the person who had called her on the 

prior occasions, stating, inter alia, that Linda Johnson's voice 

"was like a male attempting to have it [the voice] to be a female, 

a falsetto voice." On cross-examination, Ms. Tuggle explained the 

reasons for her firm belief that it was Davis who had made the 

calls for both himself and "Linda Johnson." 

A postal clerk identified Davis in court as the person who 

picked up mail from a post box registered to Lin E. and Sherri 

Davis (P.O. Box 94520) 5 • Another postal clerk identified Davis in 

court as the person to whom he delivered mail at Davis' home address (1004 s.w. 48th Street}. A third postal clerk identified a 

change of address form for Lin E. Davis, Sherri D. Davis, and 

Jennifer L6 Davis. The form requested that mail. previously 

delivered to 1004 s.w. 48th Street be delivered instead to P.O. 

Box 94520. Finally, a postal clerk named Norva Crayton identified 

change of address forms and a post box application signed by Lin 

E. Davis or Linda Johnson (changing delivery from P.O. Box 32607 

to P.O. Box 94520). The change of address forms listed many 

names, including those used on coin company order forms and on 

money market accounts which other witnesses had testified about 

even though there were funds in the accounts. 

5 

the 

was 

The post office box applicant must list his or her address on 

application. The address given by the applicant of Box 94520 

1004 s.w. 48th Street--Lin E. Davis' home address. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-2896 Document: 01019408261 Date Filed: 10/25/1989 Page: 4 
earlier. Ms. Crayton also identified Davis as the person who collected the mail from the box issued to Lin E. and Sherri Davis. 

Further, a search of Davis' home by postal authorities disclosed 

coins which had previously ·been identified as coins shipped to 

Davis. 

As indicated, Davis testified and basically denied all 

wrongdoing. Specifically, he denied placing any coin orders and 

he also denied ever talking with Ms~ Tuggle. Further, Davis 

contradicted his identification by the postal clerks as the owner 

of the post office box in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 

After the district court denied Davis' Rule 29 motion made at 

the conclusion of the government's initial presentation of 

evidence, Davis testified in his own behalf, and the government 

thereafter called several rebuttal witnesses. The general rule is 

that a defendant who presents evidence after a motion for acquittal is deemed to have waived any objection to such denial. United 

States v. Douglas, 668 F.2d 459 (lOth Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 

477 U.S. 1108, 102 S. Ct. 2908, 73 L.Ed. 2d 1317 (1982). The 

record before us does not indicate that Davis renewed his motion 

for acquittal at the close of all the evidence. However, if he 

had, or perhaps did, the sufficiency of the evidence is to be 

determined by an examination of the entire record. United States 

v. Boss, 671 F.2d 396 (lOth Cir. 1982). 

Although Davis has waived his right to obtain appellate 

review of the district court's denial of his motion for judgment 

of acquittal made at the conclusion of the government case, he is 

entitled to a review of the entire record to determine if there is 

-sAppellate Case: 88-2896 Document: 01019408261 Date Filed: 10/25/1989 Page: 5 
a plain error or defect affecting his substantial rights. United 

States v. Parrott, 434 F.2d 294 (lOth Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 

401 U.S. 979, 91 S. Ct. 1211, 28 L~Ed. 2d 330 (1971). In our 

view, the totality of the evidence amply supports the jury's 

verdict~ There is no doubt that someone used the postal service 

to further a scheme to defraud. The orders were for coins of 

substantial value and were invariably accompanied by short checks. 

And we believe the government's evidence tied Davis to the scheme. 

In particular, the testimony of Ms. Tuggle and the postal 

representatives terided to establish Davis• participation in the 

scheme. Indeed, it would appear that Davis wa~ the perpetrator of 

the scheme. His denials at trial simply posed a disputed issue of 

fact which was resolved adversely to Davis by the jury. 6 

The Sentencing Guidelines Manual provides that if a defendant 

willfully impedes or obstructs the administration of justice during the investigation or prosecution of a given case, the "offense 

level" is increased "by 2 levels." United States Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Guidelines Manual, §3Cl.l. The 11Commentary" 

under that guideline states that "testifying untruthfully 

concerning a material fact ••• during a trial" is one form of 

obstructing justice. The presentence report suggested, if it did 

6 The basic elements of a violation of 18 U.S~C. § 1341 are a 

scheme to defraud and use of the mail to further the scheme. A 

"scheme to defraud" is one which is reasonably calculated to 

deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension. United 

States v. Seasholtz, 435 Fo2d 4 (lOth Cir. 1970). The success or 

failure of the scheme to defraud is immaterial. United States v. 

Stewart, 872 F.2d 957 (lOth Cir. 1989): United States v. 

Aigbevbolle, 827 F.2d 664 (lOth Cir. 1987); United States v. 

Curtis, 537 F.2d 1091 (lOth Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 u.s. 

962, 97 S. Ct. 389, 50 t.Ed. 2d 330 (1976). 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-2896 Document: 01019408261 Date Filed: 10/25/1989 Page: 6 
not recommend, that Davis' offense level should be raised two 

levels because of his false testimony at trial. In any event, the 

district judge did raise Davis' offense level by two levels 

because of what he deemed to be false testimony given by Davis. 

Specifically, the district judge held that Davis testified falsely 

in connection with the testimony given by Ms. Tuggle and the 

postal representatives and accordingly raised the offense level by 

two. 

On appeal, Davis argues that the district judge erred in 

raising the offense level by two. In thus arguing, counsel relies 

on two other provisions in the 11Commentary" which state that a 

defendant's testimony "should be evaluated in a light most favorable to the defendant" and that a defendant should not be punished 

for the exercise of his constitutional right to testify in his own 

behalf. The defendant, however, does not have a constitutional 

right 

{1978). 

to commit perjury. United States v. Grayson, 438 u.s. 41 

The crucial factor for determining whether or not the 

conviction of a defendant who gave exculpatory testimony triggers 

the obstruction of justice adjustment is the ability of the trial 

judge to observe the demeanor of the testifying defendant, and to 

access that testimony in the context of the full record. United 

States v. Salvatore Emanuel, No. 588 Cr. 652 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 

1989) (Lexis, Gen. Fed. library, Dist. File). A trial judge may 

include as a factor in sentencing the judge's conclusion that a 

defendant's testimony was perjured. Grayson, at 54-55. 

18 u.s.c. § 3742 provides for appellate review of an 

otherwise final sentence and in connection therewith states at 18 

-7-

Appellate Case: 88-2896 Document: 01019408261 Date Filed: 10/25/1989 Page: 7 
u.s.c. S 3742(d) that a "court of appeals shall give due regard to 

the opportunity of the district court to judge the credibility of 

the witnesses and shall accept the findings of fact of the 

district court unless they are clearly erroneous. 11 

The district court found that Davis testified falsely when he 

denied having telephone conversation with Ms. Tuggle and when he 

denied ownership of the post office box in Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, the latter in the face of testimony of several postal 

clerks who testified to the contrary. On the record, we do not 

believe the district court's findings in this regard are clearly 

erroneous. 

Judgment affirmed. 

-aEntered for the Court 

Robert H. McWilliams 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 88-2896 Document: 01019408261 Date Filed: 10/25/1989 Page: 8