FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Febr uar y 7, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11553 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 0 0 0 7 4 - CR- 3 - RV U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A C Q U E L I N E A N N E S H A R P E , a .k .a . A n n e S h a rp e , J A M E S A . S H A R P E , S R ., a .k .a . J im m y S h a rp e , D A V I D W . S T U A R T , D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 7, 2006) B efo re D U B IN A , H U L L an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. M A R C U S , C i rc ui tJudg e:2

T he gove r nm e nta ppe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s pos t - tr i a l di s m i s s a l of the i nd i ctm ent , pu rs uantt o F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 12 (b)( 3)(B ) f or fa i l ure t o s t a t e a n of

f e ns e , a ga i ns tJ a m e s S ha rpe , S r . ( “ S ha rpe ” ) a nd J a c que l i ne A nne S ha rpe ( “ A nne S ha rpe ” ) ( c ol l e c t i ve l y , “ the S ha rpe s ” ) a nd D a vi d S tua r t . T he tw oc ounti ndi c t m e ntc ha r ge d S ha rpe a nd S tua r tw i th m a i l f r a ud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U .S .C . § § 1 3 4 1 a n d 2 ( C o u n t 1 ) , a n d a ll th r e e d e f e n d a n ts w ith c o n s p ir a c y to l aund erproceeds of m ai l fr aud, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 6(h) (C ou nt2), ar i si ng ou tof t hei r i nv ol vem enti n a sc hem e t o con ce al fund s w hi ch S harpe w as or de r e d t o r e l i nqui s h t o a c our t - a ppoi nt e d R e c e i ve ra s pa r tof a pl e a a gr e e m e nti n a pr i orc a s e . O n a ppe a l , the gove r nm e nta r gue s the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by di s m i s s i ng th e in d ic tm e n t b e c a u s e it c o n ta in e d a lle g a tio n s s u f f ic ie n t, a s a m a tte ro f

la w , to state th e o ff

en se s c h ar g ed . W e a g re e a n d , acc o rd in g ly, rev er se th e d istrict co u rt’s d ism issa l o f th e in d ictm en t an d re m an d w ith in stru ctio n s to re in state th e ju ry ’s ve r di c ta nd f

orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e ntw i th thi s opi ni on. I. W e r e vi e w the di s m i s s a l of a n i ndi c t m e ntde novo. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. deV egt er , 19 8 F . 3d 13 24 , 13 26 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ). F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P r oc e dur e 12( b) ( 3) ( B ) pr ovi de s tha t“ a ta ny t i m e w hi l e the c a s e i s pe ndi ng, the co u rt m ay h ea r a claim th at th e in d ictm en t o r in fo rm atio n fa il s to in v o k e th e c o u rt’s3

j u ri sd i ct i o n o r t o st at e an o ffen se. ” F ed . R . C ri m . P . 1 2 (b )(3 )(B ). W e w i l l rev erse a R ul e 12(b)(3)(B) dis m i ss al i f w e c on cl ud e, as w e do h er e, “ thatthe fa ctual a l l e ga t i ons i n the i ndi c t m e nt , w he n vi e w e d i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the go vernm ent , w er e s uffi ci entt o charge the offens e a s a m att erof l aw . ” deV egt er , 198 F . 3d a t1327 ( i nt e r na l quot a t i ons om i t t e d) ; s e e a l s o U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a m ps on, 371 U . S . 75, 78- 79 ( 1962) ( s t a t i ng tha ta l l e ga t i ons i n i ndi c t m e nta r e tr e a t e d a s true w h e n r e v ie w in g R u le 1 2 ( b ) m o tio n s to d is m is s ) . II . T he re l evantfa ct s a re these . W e e m ph as i ze thatou r f ocus i s on t he fa ct s a s a lle g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t, w h ic h w e v ie w in f a v o ro f th e g o v e r n m e n t a n d a s s u m e to be t rue f or pu rposes of t hi s app ea l . In ot her w ords, as the di stri ctcourtw as r e qui r e d t o do, w e l i m i tourdi s c us s i on t o the f a c i a l s uf f i c i e nc y of

the a l l e ga t i ons of th e in d ic tm e n t f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

th e R u le 1 2 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( B ) a n a ly s is . A c c or di ng t o the i ns t a nti ndi c t m e nt , S ha rpe ha d pr e vi ous l y pl e d gui l ty , i n a s e pa r a t e pr oc e e di ng, t o thr e e c ount s of m a ki ng f

a l s e s t a t e m e nt s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1 01 4. T he supers edi ng i nd i ctm enti n t he pri or ca se i ncl ud ed a f orfe i ture c o u n t e n u m e r a tin g , in te ra lia , c o m m e r c ia l p r o p e r ty lo c a te d o n H ig h w a y 9 8 in D e s t i n, F l or i da ( “ E m e r a l d L a ke s pr ope r ty ” ) , a s ha vi ng be e n obt a i ne d by f r a ud a nd, th e r e f o r e , f o r f e ita b le . T h e E m e r a ld L a k e s p r o p e r ty w a s o w n e d b y F o u rS ta r , a4

c o m p a n y w h ic h w a s o w n e d b y A s s e t R e s o u r c e s M a n a g e m e n t ( “A s s e t R e s o u r c e s ” ) . A s s e tR e s our c e s , i n tur n, w a s ow ne d by the S ha rpe s , a nd S ha rpe s e r ve d a s the P resi d en tan d D i rect o r o f t h e co m p an y. A s pa r tof

the pl e a a gr e e m e nti n the pr i orc a s e , S ha rpe a nd hi s c od ef en d an ts, Jam es A . S h ar p e, Jr . an d S h an n o n S h ar p e C ar r, ag re ed to th e c o u rt’s a p p o in tm e n t o f

a R e c e iv e rto lo c a te a n d m a n a g e a s s e ts , in c lu d in g th e E m e r a ld L akes prop er ty. T he R ec ei ver w as char ged w i th l i qu i dat i ng the E m er al d L akes pr ope r ty a nd hol di ng a l l f unds f r om the s a l e f

orf utur e di s tr i but i on t o the vi c t i m s of th e c r im e s to w h ic h S h a rp e p le d g u ilty . A c c o r d in g to th e a lle g a tio n s e n u m e r a te d in C o u n t 1 o f

th e in s ta n t in d ic tm e n t, S tu a r t, a lic e n s e d r e a l e s ta te a g e n t w o r k in g w ith A bb ot tR ea l ty S er vi ce s, Inc. (“ A bb ot tR ea l ty” ), and S harpe, k n o w in g ly d e v is e [ d ] a n d in te n d e d to d e v is e a s c h e m e a n d a r tif ic e to de f r a ud, a nd f

orobt a i ni ng m one y by m e a ns of f a l s e a nd f

r a udul e nt pr e t e ns e s , r e pr e s e nt a t i ons , a nd pr om i s e s f orthe purpos e of

e xe c ut i ng s uc h s c he m e a nd a r t i f

i c e a nd a t t e m pt i ng s o t o do, c a us e d t o be s e nt f r om F or tW a l t on B e a c h, F l or i da , a nd de l i ve r e d a c c or di ng t o di r e c t i on the r e on by c om m e r c i a l i nt e r s t a t e c a r r i e r , a F e dE x pa c ka ge c ont a i ni ng [ a c h e c k ] to M r . M ic h a e l J . Q u illin g , [ th e R e c e iv e r ] . . . N ot a bl y , the F e dE x pa c ka ge w a s s e nton ora boutJ une 11, 2004, a f t e rthe appo i nt m entof t he R ec ei ver. T he i nd i ctm entfurther a l l eged t haton M ar ch 8, 20 04 , S harpe and S tuart ent er ed i nt o an “ E xcl usi ve O ne T i m e L i st i ng A gree m ent , ” i n w hi ch S harpe, as pr e s i de ntof

F ourS t a r , a gr e e d t o pa y A bbot tR e a l ty a f l a tc om m i s s i on f

e e of5

$ 3 0 ,0 0 0 u p o n th e s a le o f th e E m e r a ld L a k e s p r o p e r ty f o r$ 1 ,7 5 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e p r o p e r ty w a s s o ld f

o r$ 1 ,7 5 0 ,0 0 0 o n J u n e 5 , 2 0 0 4 , a n d , p u r s u a n t to in s tru c tio n s f r o m S tu a r t, the cl osi ng att orney di sburse d t he $3 0, 00 0 com m i ss i on fe e t o A bb ot tR ea l ty. In a d d itio n , th e c lo s in g a tto r n e y d is b u r s e d $ 1 5 3 ,7 5 0 to “D a v id S tu a r t, C o n s u lta n t,” al so pu rs uantt o S tuart ’ s i nstruct i on s. T he am ou ntof bo th d i sburse m ent s w as de duc t e d f

r om the m one y the c l os i ng a t t or ne y ga ve t o the R e c e i ve r , e ve n though, a s the i ndi c t m e ntnot e d, the r e c e i ve r s hi p or de r s r e qui r e d “ the s a l e pr oc e e ds t o be g iv e n d ir e c tly to th e R e c e iv e r .” O n J u n e 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , S tu a r t d e p o s ite d th e $ 1 5 3 ,7 5 0 c o n s u lta n t f e e in to h is c h e c k in g a c c o u n t, w h ic h , p r io rto th is d e p o s it, h a d a b a la n c e o f a p p r o x im a te ly $2, 000. T hr e e da y s e a r l i e r , on J une 8, 2004, S tua r tha d w r i t t e n a c he c k, dr a w n on th i s sam e ch eck i n g acco u n t , t o A n n e S h arp e (S h arp e’ s w i fe) fo r $ 3 5 , 0 0 0 . F i n al l y, on J une 14, 2004, A nne S ha rpe pr e s e nt e d S tua r t ’ s c he c k t o S tua r t ’ s ba nk a nd c onve r t e d the c he c k i nt o f ourof f i c i a l c he c ks i n the a m ountof $8000 e a c h a nd to o k th e r e m a in in g $ 3 0 0 0 in c a s h . T hus , a c c or di ng t o C ount1, the S ha rpe s a nd S tua r te nga ge d i n a s c he m e a nd art i fi ce t o d efrau d th e R ecei v er o f a p o rt i o n o f t h e E m eral d L ak es sal es p ro ceed s, w h ic h th e S h a rp e s w e r e r e q u ir e d to g iv e d ir e c tly to th e R e c e iv e r , p u r s u a n t to S ha rpe ’ s pl e a a gr e e m e nti n the pr i orc a s e . I n othe rw or ds , c ons trui ng the a l l e ga t i ons i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor a bl e t o the gove r nm e nt , the s c he m e c ons i s t e d ofThe district cour t’s order appointing theRece iver, dated Novembe r 21, 2003, included 1 thefo llo wi ngprov isi on s: 1. [P]en din gre so lution of thi s ca se , th e de fend ants , th e ir a g e nts , s e rv ants , employees, attorneys, fami ly members, a

nd those persons in ac tive concert o r p arti c ip ati o nw it

hth e m, ar e O RD E RE D n o t t o s e ll , a s s ign , p le d g e,

6 u n l aw fu l l y d i v ert i n g so m e o f t h e E m eral d L ak es sal e p ro ceed s t o th e S h arp es, f a ls e ly r e p r e s e n tin g to th e R e c e iv e rth e a m o u n t o f th e s a le , a n d u s in g th e m a ils to f ur the rthe s c he m e t o de f r a ud. In C ou nt2, S tuartand b ot h S harpes w er e c harged w i th con spi ra cy t o l aund er the pr oc e e ds of

the m a i l f

r a ud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1956( h) , ba s e d on the fa ct s pre se nt ed i n C ou nt1 and the al l egat i on s thatS tuart , S harpe, and A nn e S harpe kn ow i ng l y c om bi ne[d] , conspi re [d] , . . . t og ether a nd w i th o ther pe r s ons , t o c onduc ta nd a t t e m ptt o c onduc tm one t a r y tr a ns a c t i ons a f f e c tin g in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , k n o w in g th a t th e p r o p e r ty in v o lv e d in th e t ran sact i o n s rep resen t ed th e p ro ceed s o f u n l aw fu l act i v i ty, th ati s, m a il f r a u d , a n d k n o w in g th a t th e tr a n s a c tio n s w e r e d e s ig n e d in w h o le or i n p ar tt o con ce al and d i sgui se the nature, the l ocat i on , the source, the ow ne r s hi p, a nd the c ontr ol of the pr oc e e ds of

s pe c i f i e d unl a w f

ul a c tiv ity . . . T he gove r nm e nt ’ s a l l e ga t i ons w e r e ba s e d i n pa r ton the tw o or de r s f r om the pr i or c r im in a l c a s e in v o lv in g S h a rp e , in w h ic h th e R e c e iv e rw a s a p p o in te d . Du r i n g th e d e f

e n d a n t s ’ j u r y tr i a l , th e g o v e r n m e n te n t e r e d th e two r e c e iv e r s h ip o r d e r s in to e v id e n c e a n d a r g u e d th a t th e R e c e iv e rw a s e n title d to r e c e iv e th e $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 p o r tio n o f S tu a r t’s c o n s u lta n t f

e e th a t u ltim a te ly w a s g iv e n to the S ha rpe s . T he de f

e nda nt s m a i nt a i ne d dur i ng the tr i a l , how e ve r , tha tthe 1distribute, giveawa y , encumbe r, re move fro m the jurisdiction of this court with the intent to conceal or hide, or otherwise participate in the disposal of, or attempt to take a

ny actions that would af

fec t or diminish the valueor m ar k e t a b i l i ty o f , th e f o l l o w i n gp r o p e rty:

. . . . d. defendants’ intere st in real property location on Highway

98. . . .

. . . . 2. In acc ordanc e with the agree ment rea ched by the parties, the de fenda nts are authorized to sell or dispose of the proper ty listed in paragraph d a

bove, af ter c o n s u l t at i o nw i than d

a p p r o v a lo f

th e Un i t e d

S t at e s Att o r

n e y. I T I S F URTHER ORDERED that Michae l J . Quilling, Esq. (“ Rece iver” ) . . . be and he reby is a pp ointe d a s r e c e iver t o id e nti fy and tr a c e fi na nc ia l a sse ts of de fend ants Jame s A . Sh arp e , Sr . . . . T heRe c e iver i s f ur ther a uth orize d to takepo sse ssi on

of and manag e these iz ed asse ts l ist e d in pa ragra ph s e throu gh j a

bo ve and any

proc e e ds ob ta ine d b y

and of thede fend ants a s a result of the sale of the property listed in paragraph d above, pending f urther orde r o f t his c ourt . In a sec ond rec eiver ship order, entere d on Marc h 11, 2004, afte r the par ties agree d to the expansion of the R ece iver’s duties and responsibili ties, the prohibi tion of the defendants’ conduc t in r e lati o nto th e f

o r f e it ur e p r o p e rty

w a s e xp an d e d

to c o v e r “ any p r o p e rty s u b je c t t o f orfe iture belong i n g t o , o r co ntrolled by the def endants, in whole or

in part, includingbut not lim ited to the followingproper

ty : . . . d. defendants’ intere st in real property located on H ighw ay

98 . . . .” The second rece ivership orde r fur ther provide d: Th at Jam e s A . Sh arp e , Sr ., Jame s A . Sh arp e , Jr. , a nd Sha nn on S harp e Carr, the ir

a g e nts , serva nts, employees, att orneys, family members, a

nd those persons in ac tive concert or participation with them, shall i mmediately identify and turn over possession to the Rece iver, a ll theprop e rt

y de sc ribe d a

bo vewh ic h is in t

he ir po sse ssi on

or un de r t he ir c ontrol. I T I S F URTH ER ORD ERE D that no per so n or entity c la imi ngtheri ght t o p os se ss or op e rateor

makede c isi on s w ithre sp e c t to any Re c e ivers hip As se ts s hall e xerc ise any of th e i r

c l a i m e d ri ght s o r p o w e r s w i thr e s p e c tt o th e r e c e i v e r s h ip A s s e t s until fu rt he r o rd e r o f t

heCourt . 7 $ 3 5 , 0 0 0 g i v en b y S tu artt o A n n e S h arp e w as a p erso n al l o an as ev i d en ced b y aRul e 29 (c ), wh ic h c ontrols motion s f or judgme nt o f a c qu itt a l f

ile d a ft e r t

hejur y ve rdic t, 2 p ro v i d es th e f

o l l o wi n g: (c) After Jury Verdict or Discha

rg e. (1) Time f

or a Motion. A def

en d an t may

move for a

judgme nt of ac quittal, or rene w s u c h a mo ti o n , w it h in 7 d ay s a f

ter a gu il ty v e r d ic t o r a f ter the court discharg es the jury , whichever is later. (2) Rulingon the Motion. I f the jury has returne d a guilty verdic t, the court may set asid e th e v e r d ic t an d e nter an a c qu ittal. I f th e ju r y h a s f a il e d to r e tu

rn a ve rdic t, t hec ourt may e nter a judgme nt o f a c qu itt a l. (3) No Prior Motion Require d. A d ef en d an t is not required to move f or a judgme nt o f a c qu itt a l be fo rethec ourt su bmi ts thec a seto th e jury a s a prerequisite for ma

king suc h a motion after

jury discharg e. Fe d. R. Crim. P . 29(c) . 8 pr om i s s or y not e . O n O c t obe r22, 2004, the j ur y r e tur ne d a ve r di c tf i ndi ng the d e f e n d a n ts g u ilty a s c h a r g e d . S e v e n d a y s la te r , A n n e S h a rp e f ile d a m o tio n f

o rju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l, pu rs uantt o F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 29 (c ), chal l engi ng the suff i ci ency of the e vi de nc e t o s uppor the rc onvi c t i on on C ount2. I n thi s m ot i on, A nne 2 S harpe as se rt ed t hatthe go vernm entfa i l ed t o p rove beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthat S h a rp e a n d S tu a r t c o m m itte d m a il f r a u d , a n d , a s a r e s u lt, th e g o v e r n m e n t f a ile d to e s t a bl i s h tha tthe $35, 000 c he c k A nne S ha rpe r e c e i ve d f r om S tua r tc ons i s t e d of pr oc e e ds f

r om m a i l f

r a ud ortha ts he e nt e r e d i nt o a n a gr e e m e ntw i th S ha rpe a nd S tua r tt o c onc e a l m one y s he kne w w a s obt a i ne d thr ough m a i l f r a ud. T hi s m ot i on9

r e m a i ne d pe ndi ng w he n the de f e nda nt s pr oc e e de d t o s e nt e nc i ng on J a nua r y 5, 2005. D u r in g th e s u b s e q u e n t s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , in s u p p o r t o f h is o b je c tio n s to the c om put a t i on of

hi s r e c om m e nde d s e nt e nc e i n the P r e s e nt e nc e I nve s t i ga t i on R e por t , S tua r ta r gue d tha tthe a m ountof l os s i n the c a s e w a s $0 a nd tha tthe R e c e iv e rw a s n o t e n title d to th e $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 p o r tio n o f S tu a r t’s f

e e b e c a u s e it re pres ent ed a 2% com m i ss i on thatw ou l d h ave gon e t o J. A . S . R ea l ty, anot her com pany form ed by S harpe buton e thatw as no tcovered by the re ce i vers hi p o rder s ent er ed i n t he pri or ca se . T he di stri ctcourtagre ed t hati f the re ce i vers hi p o rder s d id n o t c o v e rJ .A .S . R e a lty , th e n th e R e c e iv e rw a s n o t e n title d to th e m o n e y . A tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, S tua r ta nd the S ha rpe s a l s o or a l l y m ove d the c o u r t f o rju d g m e n ts o f

a c q u itta l b a s e d o n th e f a c t th a t th e r e c e iv e r s h ip o r d e r s d id notc ove rJ . A . S . R e a l ty . T he de f e nda nt s ur ge d, i n e s s e nc e , tha ti f the $35, 000 p a y m e n t to A n n e S h a rp e , in f a c t, w a s a c o m m is s io n to J .A .S . R e a lty , th e r e c o u ld be no f r a ud a ga i ns tthe R e c e i ve rbe c a us e he w a s note nt i t l e d t o m one y ow i ng J .A .S . R e a lty . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o v id e d th e p a r tie s w ith o n e w e e k to f ile m e m o r a n d a o f

la w in s u p p o r t o f

th e irp o s itio n s o n th e R u le 2 9 ( c ) m o tio n s . T he go vernm entfi l ed a w ri t t en m em orandu m i n o pp osi t i on t o t he oral m o tio n s . T h e g o v e r n m e n t h ig h lig h te d th a t th e R u le 2 9 ( c ) m o tio n s w e r e u n tim e ly si n ce t h ey w ere n o tm ad e u n t i l Jan u ary 5 , 2 0 0 5 , w h i ch w as m o re t h an sev en d ays10

a f t e rthe j ur y r e tur ne d i t s ve r di c ton O c t obe r22, 2004. A s f orthe s t i l l - pe ndi ng w ri t t en m ot i on , pu rs uantt o R ul e 29(c), fi l ed by A nn e S harpe w i thi n t he se ven-day pe r i od, the gove r nm e ntnot e d tha ti tw a s notba s e d on the a r gum e nt s c onc e r ni ng J . A . S . R e a l ty , w hi c h w e r e m a de a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng. O the rtha n A nne S ha rpe ’ s pos t - ve r di c tm ot i on f orj udgm e ntof

a c qui t t a l , w hi c h w a s f

i l e d be f or e the arg u m en t s m ad e atth e sen t en ci n g h eari n g an d w as n o tb ased o n th o se arg u m en t s, the de f e nda nt s di d notf

i l e a ny w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l s i n s uppor tof the i ra r gum e nt s m a de a tthe s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng, de s pi t e be i ng gi ve n the oppor tuni ty t o do s o. T he di s tr i c tc our ts ubs e que nt l y c onve r t e d the or a l m ot i ons f orj udgm e ntof ac qu i t t al i nt o m ot i on s t o d i sm i ss the i nd i ctm entfor f ai l ure t o st at e a n o ff

ense . In i t s or de r , the c our tnot e d tha tA nne S ha rpe ha d f i l e d a w r i t t e n m ot i on f

orj udgm e nt o f a c q u itta l u n d e rR u le 2 9 , a n d , a t th e s e n te n c in g h e a r in g , a ll th r e e d e f e n d a n ts m a de or a l m ot i ons f

orj udgm e nt s of

a c qui t t a l on the gr ounds tha tthe i ndi c t m e nt di d nots t a t e a n of

f e ns e . T he di s tr i c tc our tde t e r m i ne d tha tthe de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i ons for j ud gm entof ac qu i t t al un der R ul e 29 w er e unt i m el y a nd , as a r es ul t , the court la c k e d a u th o r ity to g r a n t th e m . A l th o u g h th e o ral m o t i o n s fo r j u d g m en to f acq u i t t al p l ai n l y w ere u n t i m el y, base d o n t he defendant s’ oral ar gu m ent s a tthe se nt enci ng hear i ng , the di stri ctcourt c ons true d the R ul e 29 m ot i ons a s i f the y w e r e m a de pur s ua ntt o R ul e 12( b) . T he c our tthe n f

ound tha tthe $35, 000 c he c k S tua r tw r ot e t o A nne S ha rpe - - a ga i n, the11

de f e nda nt s ha d a r gue d a ttr i a l tha tthe c he c k w a s a l oa n - - w a s , i n f a c t , a 2% com m i ss i on thatJ. A . S . R ea l ty c ust om ar i l y r ec ei ved i n d ea l i ng s i nv ol vi ng S tuart and S harpe. R el yi ng on the t w o rec ei vers hi p o rder s, w hi ch t he go vernm enthad pr e s e nt e d dur i ng the j ur y tr i a l , the c our tc onc l ude d tha tJ . A . S . R e a l ty w a s not w i th i n th e sco p e o f t h e o rd ers t h atco v ered “ th e d efen d an t s, th ei r ag en t s, serv an t s, e m pl oy e e s , a t t or ne y s , f

a m i l y m e m be r s , a nd thos e i n a c t i ve c onc e r torpa r t i c i pa t i on w i th t hem . ” T hu s, the courtfoun d t hatJ. A . S . R ea l ty, as a s epar at e l egal ent i ty, w as n o t p r o h ib ite d f

r o m r e c e iv in g a 2 % c o m m is s io n f r o m th e s a le o f

th e E m e r a ld L akes prop er ty. T he courtal so det er m i ned t hatthe R ec ei ver w as no tdefr auded be c a us e di ve r s i on of

the f unds by S tua r tt o A nne S ha rpe di d notde pr i ve the R e c e i ve rof

a ny m one y s i nc e the or de r s di d notba rJ . A . S . R e a l ty f r om r e c e i vi ng the 2% c om m i s s i on, a nd the $35, 000 gi ve n t o A nne S ha rpe r e pr e s e nt e d the a m ount o f th e c o m m is s io n . A s a r e s u lt, th e c o u r t c o n c lu d e d th a t th e in d ic tm e n t d id n o t s u f f ic ie n tly a l l e ge m a i l f

r a ud a nd, the r e f

or e , the m one y a ti s s ue i n the m one y l a unde r i ng c ount coul d n otbe consi dere d p roce eds of unl aw ful ac t i vi ty. A cc ordi ng l y, the court va c a t e d the f

i na l j udgm e nt s a nd di s m i s s e d the i ndi c t m e nt . T hi s a ppe a l f ol l ow e d. II I. O n a ppe a l , the gove r nm e nta s s e r t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te r r e d by di s m i s s i ng the i ndi c t m e nt , pur s ua ntt o R ul e 12( b) ( 3) ( B ) , be c a us e i tl ooke d be y ond the f a c e of12

the i ndi c t m e nta nd m a de i t s de c i s i on ba s e d on a l l of the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d dur i ng the tr i a l . I ta r gue s tha tthe i ndi c t m e nts uf f i c i e nt l y c ha r ge d m a i l f

r a ud by a l l e gi ng tha tthe de f

e nda nt s w i l f

ul l y pa r t i c i pa t e d i n a s c he m e t o de f r a ud a nothe r( the R e c e iv e r ) o f

p r o p e r ty o rm o n e y ( th e $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 p o r tio n o f th e E m e r a ld L a k e s s a le proceeds St uarttra nsfe rr ed t o t he S harpes ) a nd used t he m ai l s i n furt hera nce of that s c he m e . T he gove r nm e nta l s o c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ti m pr ope r l y r e l i e d on a c ons truc t i on of

the f a c t s tha tw a s nots uppor t e d by the e vi de nc e a nd, ba s e d on th is e r r o n e o u s c o n s tru c tio n o f th e e v id e n c e , f

o u n d th a t J .A .S . R e a lty d id n o t f a ll w i thi n t he sc op e of the re ce i vers hi p o rder s. F i nal l y, the go vernm enthi gh l i gh t s that one of the r e c e i ve r s hi p or de r s r e qui r e d the R e c e i ve rt o t a ke pos s e s s i on of a ny pr oc e e ds f

r om the s a l e obt a i ne d by a ny de f e nda nt . T hus , a c c or di ng t o the g o v e r n m e n t, th e $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 , e v e n if it w a s a c o m m is s io n to J .A .S . R e a lty , w a s s till

“ obt a i ne d” by S ha rpe thr ough the c he c k w r i t t e n t o A nne S ha rpe , i n vi ol a t i on of the r e c e iv e r s h ip o r d e r s . B y now i thas bec om e w el l -e st abl i shed t hat“ [t ] he suff i ci ency of a c ri m i nal i ndi c t m e nti s de t e r m i ne d f r om i t s f a c e . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S a l m a n, 378 F . 3d 1266, 1 2 6 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o tin g U n ite d S ta te s v . C r itz e r , 9 5 1 F .2 d 3 0 6 , 3 0 7 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1992) ) . “ F ora n i ndi c t m e ntt o be va l i d, i tm us tc ont a i n the e l e m e nt s of the of f e ns e i nt e nde d t o be c ha r ge d, a nd s uf f i c i e nt l y a ppr i s e the de f

e nda ntof w ha the m ustbe prepare d t o m ee t . ” U ni t ed S t at es v. B ob o, 34 4 F . 3d 10 76 , 10 83 (11t h C i r.13

2 0 0 3 ) (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i t t ed ). “ A n i n d i ct m en tn o tfram ed t o ap p ri se th e d e f e n d a n t w ith r e a s o n a b le c e r ta in ty , o f th e n a tu r e o f

th e a c c u s a tio n a g a in s t h im i s def ec t i ve, al tho ug h i tm ay fol l ow the l angu age of the st atut e. ” I d. (i nt er nal quot a t i on m a r ks om i t t e d) . “ F ur the r m or e , i f the i ndi c t m e nttr a c ks the l a ngua ge of the s t a tut e , i tm us tbe a c c om pa ni e d w i th s uc h a s t a t e m e ntof the f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s a s w i l l i nf or m the a c c us e d of

the s pe c i f

i c of f e ns e , c om i ng unde rthe ge ne r a l de s c r i pt i on, w i th w hi c h he i s c ha r ge d. ” I d. ( i nt e r na l quot a t i on m a r ks o m itte d ) . In rul i ng on a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss for f ai l ure t o st at e a n o ff

ense , a di stri ctcourt i s l i m i t e d t o r e vi e w i ng the f a c e of the i ndi c t m e nta nd, m or e s pe c i f i c a l l y , the l a ngua ge us e d t o c ha r ge the c r i m e s . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C r i t z e r , 951 F . 2d 306, 307 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . I ti s w e l l - s e t t l e d tha t“ a c our tm a y notdi s m i s s a n i ndi c t m e nt

. . . on a det er m i nat i on of fa ct s thatshou l d h ave been devel op ed attri al . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . T o r k in g to n , 8 1 2 F .2 d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 5 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ) . A f t e rr e vi e w of

the r e c or d, i ti s c l e a rtha ti n di s m i s s i ng the i ns t a nti ndi c t m e nt the di s tr i c tc our tc ons i de r e d the ove r a l l s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e pr e s e nt e d by the gove r nm e nta ttr i a l , a c c or di ng pa r t i c ul a rw e i ghtt o the l a ngua ge of the r e c e i ve r s hi p or de r s , w hi c h w e r e pr e s e nt e d a s e vi de nc e a ttr i a l a nd w e r e notpa r tof the i ndi c t m e nt . T hi s i tc oul d notdo. E ve n i f the di s tr i c tc our tw a s r i ghttha tthe R ec ei ver w as no tent i t l ed t o t he $3 5, 00 0 p ay m entor t hatthe $3 5, 00 0 p ay m entw asTo the extent the defe ndants sug g est more de tail was re quired in the indictment, we 3 disagree . “It is not necessar y for a n indictment . . . to alleg e in detail the f actual proof that will be relied upon to support the c harg es. That infor mation, if essential to the def ense, c an be obtained by a motion for a bill of pa

rticulars and failure to grant such a mot ion may be re versible e rror .” United States v. Crippen, 579 F.2d 340, 342 ( 5th Cir. 1978). We note that the def endants did not move for a bill of particula

rs here, nor, for that matter, did they ever ask for the relief they ultimately

obtained by vir tueof thesu a sp ontedis mis sa l of

theindic tme nt. 14 a l oa n - - a nd the r e c or d m a y be f a i r l y de ba t a bl e on the s e poi nt s - - thos e f a c t s do not f a c i a l l y i nva l i da t e the i ndi c t m e nt ’ s a l l e ga t i ons . R a the r , the y c onc e r n the suff i ci ency of t he evi dence, w hi ch i s notthe i ss ue before us ( and, as the di stri ct co u rtreco g n i zed , co u l d n o tb e rai sed b y a m o t i o n fo r j u d g m en to f acq u i t t al b ecau se th e d e f e n d a n ts d id n o t tim e ly p e r f e c t s u c h a m o tio n ) . M ai l fr aud con si st s of the fol l ow i ng el em ent s: “ (1) a n i nt ent i on al p art i ci p at i o n i n a sch em e t o d efrau d a p erso n o f m o n ey o r p ro p ert y, an d (2 ) t h e u se of the m a i l s i n f

ur the r a nc e of

the s c he m e . ” S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. S m i th, 934 F . 2d 270, 271 ( 11th C i r . 1991) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D ow ns , 870 F . 2d 613, 615 (11t h C i r. 19 89 )) . B as ed on ou r de nov o revi ew , w e c on cl ud e the di stri ctcourt e r r e d by di s m i s s i ng the i ndi c t m e nti n thi s c a s e . I n both c ount s , the i ndi c t m e nt begi ns by tra cki ng the ac tual l angu age of the appl i cabl e s t atut es . E ac h cou ntthen goe s on t o e num e r a t e the unde r l y i ng f a c t s a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s , w hi c h w e ha ve de t a i l e d a ts om e l e ngth a bove , a s t o the c r i m e c ha r ge d s o a s t o i nf or m the de f e nda nt s of

the c onduc tc ons t i tut i ng the of f e ns e s w i th w hi c h the y w e r e c ha r ge d. 3We also find the fore g oing f actual alleg ations sufficient to asse rt a c onspiracy to launder 4 money , as cha

rg ed in C o un t 2 . Cf. United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1328 (11th Cir.) (c on sp ir a c y

to l a un de r m on e y

oc c ur s whe n: (1 ) an agre e me nt exis ts be tw e e n two or more pe op leto launder money , and (2) the def

endan t s knowing ly

and voluntarily

joined or par

ticipated in the conspirac y

), cert. denied, N o. 05-7149 (Nov. 28, 2005) . 15 T h e in d ic tm e n t a lle g e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts p a r tic ip a te d in a s c h e m e to de f r a ud the R e c e i ve r . T he i ndi c t m e nta l l e ge d tha tthe s c he m e w a s ba s e d on the di ve r s i on of

pr oc e e ds f

r om the E m e r a l d L a ke s pr ope r ty s a l e thr ough pa y m e ntof the c ons ul t a ntf

e e t o S tua r t , w ho, i n tur n, tr a ns f e r r e d $35, 000 of

the f e e t o A nne S ha rpe . T he de f

e nda nt s f a l s e l y a nd f

r a udul e nt l y r e pr e s e nt e d the s a l e pr oc e e ds of th e E m e r a ld L a k e s p r o p e r ty w h e n th e y s e n t th e R e c e iv e ra c h e c k th a t w a s , in f a c t, f o ra le s s e ra m o u n t. T h is le s s e ra m o u n t d id n o t in c lu d e th e $ 3 5 ,0 0 0 p a y m e n t to A nn e S harpe. T he i nd i ctm ental so al l eged t hatthe defendant s use d t he m ai l s ( a c om m e r c i a l m a i l c a r r i e r , F e de r a l E xpr e s s ) t o s e nd the f r a udul e ntdi s bur s e m e nt c h e c k to th e R e c e iv e r . S i m pl y put , the i ndi c t m e nts uf f i c i e nt l y a l l e ge d a vi ol a t i on of the m a i l f

r a ud s t a tut e a nd s houl d notha ve be e n di s m i s s e d a s t o C ount1. V i e w e d i n the l i ght 4 m os tf a vor a bl e t o the gove r nm e nt , the a l l e ga t i ons i n the i ndi c t m e ntw e r e s uf f i c i e nt t o s t a t e the c ha r ge d of

f e ns e s a s a m a t t e rof

l a w a s t o both c ount s of the i ndi c t m e nt be c a us e the c ount s c ont a i ne d a l l of the e l e m e nt s of

the of f e ns e s c ha r ge d a nd i nf or m e d the de f

e nda nt s of

the c ha r ge s the y f

a c e d. A c c or di ngl y , w e r e ve r s e the16

di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d i sm i ss the i nd i ctm entand rem and w i th i nstruct i on s that the di s tr i c tc our tr e i ns t a t e the j ur y ’ s ve r di c ta nd f orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs c ons i s t e nt w i th thi s opi ni on. RE V E RS E D A ND RE MAND E D.