In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 01-3455

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MASAO FUJII, a/k/a YASUO TAMURA,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 00 CR 17—Joan B. Gottschall, Judge.

____________

ARGUED APRIL 9, 2002—DECIDED AUGUST 20, 2002

____________

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and COFFEY and KANNE,

Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Masao Fujii was convicted of

attempting to smuggle aliens into the United States for

private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)

(B)(ii) (“Count 1”); of encouraging and inducing aliens

to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing

that it was in violation of law, in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) (“Count 2”); and finally, of knowingly using a counterfeit passport, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1543 (“Count 3”). The district court sentenced Fujii to 36

months of imprisonment. On appeal, Fujii challenges his

conviction with respect to Counts 1 and 2, arguing that the

district court erroneously admitted evidence under the
2 No. 01-3455

business records exception to the rule against hearsay

and that the evidence the government produced at trial

was insufficient to support his convictions.

I. Background

On January 5, 2000, Masao Fujii and three Chinese

nationals used fraudulent passports to board a Korean

Airlines Flight in Saigon, Vietnam bound for Seoul, Korea.

Fujii’s fraudulent passport bore the name “Yasuo Tamura.”

Xie Mei Zheng, Yan Zhu Zheng, and Xiao Hong Li used

fraudulent passports bearing the names “Naoko Yamada,”

“Miyuki Okamoto,” and “Yuri Kimura,” respectively. The

next day, all four individuals checked through onto Korean Airlines Flight 37 in Seoul, Korea bound for Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport.

Flight 37 arrived at O’Hare’s international terminal,

Terminal 5, where the United States Immigration and

Naturalization Service (“INS”) checks passports and other

documentation. The process for checking passports and

documentation at Terminal 5 proceeds as follows: First,

the traveler presents documentation at a primary inspection station. If the documentation appears incorrect or for

some other reason requires further inspection, the traveler

is referred to an INS secondary inspection station for

further questioning.

Fujii approached the INS primary inspection station

alone. There, he presented INS Inspector Todd Seeger

with his fraudulent Japanese passport, his INS I-94 W

Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/Departure Form, and

a Customs Declaration Form. Because Seeger noticed

that Fujii’s passport did not contain the security features that he was accustomed to seeing on Japanese passports, Seeger referred Fujii to the INS secondary inspection station.
No. 01-3455 3

At the same time that Fujii was being referred to the

INS secondary inspection station, Supervisory INS Inspector Peter Manno was monitoring the other individuals arriving on Flight 37. Manno watched the three Chinese Nationals enter the women’s restroom. Manno stood

outside the restroom and refused to let anyone else enter.

After hearing six distinct toilet flushes, Manno and INS

Supervisor Teresa Guerrero entered the restroom and

confronted the three women. Two of the women were

standing together in one of the bathroom stalls, floating

in that stall’s toilet were the remnants of two Japanese

passports bearing the names “Okamoto” and “Yamada.”

The third Chinese national was in an adjacent stall and

had no passport in her possession, and no remnants were

seen floating in the toilet in that stall. All three of the

women were then escorted to the INS secondary inspection

station.

At the INS secondary inspection station, Manno contacted Korean Airlines and requested a copy of the manifest for Flight 37 and a copy of passenger reservations

for “Okamoto” and “Yamada.” Korean Airlines Assistant

Manager Tracy Oliveras printed out passenger reservations, check-in records, and the manifest for the flight.

The records were kept in a computer system and manifests were printed by Oliveras on a daily basis. Either

travel agents, airline reservation agents, or airline agents

stationed at the airport had recorded the relevant information in the computer system. Further, Oliveras testified that the entries were made at or near the time the

information was received, it was the regular business

practice of Korean Airlines to make the entries into the

computer system, and the records were kept as part of

Korean Airlines’ regular business activity.

The Korean Airlines check-in records revealed that

“Tamura” and the three Chinese nationals all “through

checked” from Saigon to Flight 37 in Seoul. Further, all four
4 No. 01-3455

individuals checked in with the same airline agent within minutes of one another. Finally, the check-in records

showed that “Yamada” was in a group of four. Without

about being asked to do so, Oliveras subsequently pulled

the records for the other individuals listed in the group of

four with “Yamada.” The other individuals listed were

“Tamura,” “Okamoto,” and “Kimura.” Korean Airlines reservations records further showed that all four individuals had booked their reservations with the same travel

agent and that the tickets were all issued on the same

day and paid for by the same company.

While Manno obtained the aforementioned flight information, INS agent Liam O’Neill began interviewing Fujii

at the INS secondary inspection station with the assistance of Language Services, a contract company that INS

used to provide interpreters via telephone. O’Neill asked

Fujii questions in English that were then translated into

Japanese by the Language Services telephone interpreter.

Then Fujii answered the questions in Japanese, and the

interpreter translated Fujii’s answers back into English.

About half-way through the interview, Korean Airlines

Manager, Man Kee Ha, took over the translating duties

for the telephone interpreter from Language Services.

After Ha began interpreting, Fujii proceeded to give

two separate sworn statements. In his first sworn statement, Fujii insisted that he was “Tamura” and that his

passport was legally issued by the Japanese government.

Following giving this first sworn statement, however,

O’Neill fingerprinted Fujii and placed his prints in the

INS’s fingerprint Identification System (“IDENT”). O’Neill

then learned that Fujii had previously pled guilty and

was convicted of encouraging or inducing six Chinese

aliens to enter the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C.

§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). O’Neill then began to interview Fujii

for a second time. At this point, Fujii admitted that the

purpose of his trip was to help the “Singapore guy” to bring
No. 01-3455 5

the three Chinese women through United States Immigration. Further, Fujii explained that he did this because he

had guaranteed a debt for a friend, Sasaki Takeshi, to the

Cambodian mafia. Fujii then signed a second sworn statement, which contained the information above, using his

real name, Masao Fujii.

Following the government’s presentation of the aforementioned evidence at trial, Fujii moved for judgment of

acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure. The district court denied Fujii’s motion with regard to Counts 2 and 3, but reserved ruling

with regard to Count 1. Following the presentation of

his case at trial, Fujii renewed his motion for judgment

of acquittal with regard to Count 1, which the district

court denied. The jury found Fujii guilty on all three counts

in the indictment.

On appeal, Fujii contends that the district court erred

when it admitted into evidence check-in and reservation

records under the business records exceptions to the bar

on the admission of hearsay. Fujii also appeals the denial

of his motion for judgment of acquittal, challenging the

sufficiency of the government’s evidence with respect to

Counts 1 and 2, arguing (1) that the government failed to

prove that he “encouraged or induced” the aliens or that

he did these acts for “private financial gain,” (2) that

the translated version of his second sworn statement is

untrustworthy, and (3) that the government failed to

provide sufficient, independent evidence to corroborate

his sworn statement.

II. Analysis

A. Business Records Exception

Fujii argues that the district court erred in admitting

Korean Airlines’ check-in and reservation records because
6 No. 01-3455

they were not made in the ordinary course of business

and because they did not contain sufficient indicia of

trustworthiness. We review a district court’s evidentiary

ruling for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Briscoe, 896 F.2d 1476, 1494-95 (7th Cir. 1990).

Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) provides for the admission of

A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in

any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if

kept in the course of a regularly conducted business

activity, and if it was the regular practice of that

business activity to make the memorandum, report,

record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless

the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.

Computer data compiled and presented in computer printouts prepared specifically for trial is admissible under

Rule 803(6), even though the printouts themselves are not

kept in the ordinary course of business. See Briscoe, 896

F.2d at 1494 n.13.

In this case, the check-in and reservation records were

compiled and maintained in Korean Airlines’ ordinary

course of business. Oliveras, Korean Airlines Assistant

Manager, testified that the records were made from information transmitted from a person with knowledge, the

entries were made at or near the time the information

was received, it was the regular business practice of Korean Airlines to make the entries into the computer system, and the records were kept as part of Korean Airlines’

regular business activity. Because the information was

printed out at the request of the INS does not deprive

the printouts of its business-record character. See id.
No. 01-3455 7

Consequently, because Fujii fails to establish that “the

source of information or the method or circumstances

of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness,” see FED.

R. EVID. 803(6), we conclude that the district court did

not abuse its discretion in admitting check-in and reservation records under Rule 803(6).

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence

A district court’s denial of a motion for acquittal is

reviewed de novo. See United States v. Quilling, 261 F.3d

707, 712 (7th Cir. 2001). We review the evidence and draw

all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most

favorable to the government. See United States v. Jackson,

103 F.3d 561, 567 (7th Cir. 1996). If any rational trier of

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt, the district court must be

affirmed. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99

S. Ct. 2781, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979).

Fujii argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient

to convict him of Counts 1 and 2. Specifically, Fujii contends that the government failed to prove that he acted

for the purpose of “private financial gain” or that he

“encouraged or induced” the aliens. To convict on Count 1,

the government needed to establish that Fujii attempted

to bring the three Chinese nationals to the United

States for the purpose of private financial gain, knowing

or in reckless disregard of the fact that the three Chinese

nationals had not received prior official authorization to

enter the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii). A

pecuniary motive sufficiently establishes that one acted

for the purpose of “private financial gain.” See United

States v. Tsai, 282 F.3d 690, 697 (9th Cir. 2002). To convict on Count 2, the government needed to establish that

Fujii encouraged or induced the three Chinese nationals

to enter the United States, knowing or in reckless disre-
8 No. 01-3455

gard of the fact that such entry was in violation of law. See

18 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv). To prove that Fujii “encouraged or induced” the aliens, all that the government needed

to establish was that Fujii knowingly helped or advised

the aliens. See United States v. He, 245 F.3d 954, 957-59

(7th Cir. 2001) (approving jury instruction equating knowingly helped or advised with “encouraged”).

The following evidence was adduced against Fujii at

trial: Fujii admitted in his second sworn statement that

he was assisting a man to bring the three Chinese nationals through United States Immigration and that he was

doing these acts because he had guaranteed a debt for a

friend to the Cambodian mafia. Further, the government

entered evidence that Fujii had previously pled guilty to

a similar crime giving an identical explanation for his

acts, establishing that Fujii knew that his acts were in

violation of the law. See FED. R. EVID. 404(b). Moreover,

the government offered evidence that all four individuals, including Fujii, attempted to use fraudulent passports to enter the United States; that Fujii and the three

Chinese nationals reserved their tickets together; that

they purchased their tickets together; that they had their

tickets issued sequentially; and finally, that they checked

in to their flight together. The government also presented

evidence that upon their arrival in Chicago, the three Chinese nationals were discovered attempting to dispose of

their fraudulent passports in the women’s washroom.

Taken in the light most favorable to the government, the

aforementioned evidence was more than sufficient to convict Fujii on both counts. Fujii himself admitted that he

was helping a man bring the three Chinese nationals

through United States Immigration. This fact established

that Fujii “encouraged or induced” the aliens. See He,

245 F.3d at 957-59. Fujii also admitted that he did these

acts because of a mafia debt, satisfying the pecuniary motive element of Count 1. See Tsai, 282 F.3d at 697.
No. 01-3455 9

1 Notably, Fujii does not allege that the district court erred in

admitting Ha’s translation nor does he challenge Ha’s qualifications.

In further support of his insufficiency claim, Fujii argues

that because the linguistic skills of Korean Airlines employee Man Kee Ha were so deficient, his translated

sworn statement should have been disregarded.1

 However,

it is not our job to determine whether Ha’s translated

version of Fujii’s sworn statement should be disregarded,

rather it is “the function of the finder-of-fact to weigh the

evidence presented by the parties as to the accuracy of

the proffered translation and to determine the reliability

of the translation on the basis of that evidence.” United

States v. Zambrana, 841 F.2d 1320, 1337 (7th Cir. 1988).

Fujii challenged Ha’s linguistic abilities on cross-examination and attempted to demonstrate to the jury why

it should have found Ha’s translations untrustworthy, and

the jury was not convinced. Thus, we decline to secondguess this credibility determination on appeal. See United

States v. Wimberly, 79 F.3d 673, 676 (7th Cir. 1996) (“Where

a sufficiency of the evidence challenge is based on witness

credibility, we defer to the jury’s determination absent

‘extraordinary circumstances.’ ”).

Finally, Fujii contends that his second sworn statement should have been disregarded because the government failed to present sufficient, independent evidence

to corroborate this sworn statement. In Jackson, the

defendant argued that because the only evidence adduced

at trial to establish the “agreement” necessary for a conspiracy came from his own statement, the government’s

evidence did not independently establish an “agreement,”

and therefore, there was insufficient evidence to sustain his

conviction. See 103 F.3d at 567. In response, we explained:

In this circuit, when an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, alleging that the conviction
10 No. 01-3455

was based solely on his own statements, we will uphold the conviction if there is substantial independent

evidence which would tend to establish the trustworthiness of the statement . . . . [E]stablishing such trustworthiness does not require independent proof of each

element of the offense charged.

Id. (citations and quotations omitted) (emphasis in original). In other words, all that is necessary is for the government to present “extrinsic evidence tending to corroborate the confession, [and then] the confession as a whole

is admissible, and some elements of the offense may be

proven entirely on the basis of [the] corroborated confession.” United States v. Trombley, 733 F.2d 35, 38 (6th Cir.

1984). Fujii’s argument overstates the extent of independent evidence necessary to corroborate his sworn statement.

As demonstrated in our analysis above, the government

presented more than sufficient evidence to corroborate

Fujii’s sworn statement, including evidence that all four

individuals reserved and purchased their tickets together, evidence that all four individuals used fraudulent

Japanese passports, and evidence that the three Chinese nationals were attempting to dispose of their fraudulent passports upon their arrival in the United States.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-97-C-006—8-20-02