10-1871-cr United States v. Tillman



### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT**



## SUMMARY ORDER

**R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT**  **. C**  **ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED**
**ON OR AFTER J** **ANUARY 1,**  **2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY**  **F EDERAL**  **R ULE OF**  **A PPELLATE**  **P ROCEDURE**  **32.1 AND THIS COURT**  **’ S**  **L OCAL**  **R ULE**  **32.1.1. W**  **HEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A**
**DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT ,**  **A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE F**  **EDERAL A** **PPENDIX OR AN**
**ELECTRONIC DATABASE (**  **WITH THE NOTATION “**  **SUMMARY ORDER ”).**  **A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST** 
**SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL .** 
**At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan** 2 **United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 15 th** **day of April, two thousand eleven.** 4 5 **PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,** 6 **Chief Judge ,**  7 **PIERRE N. LEVAL,** 8 **ROBERT A. KATZMANN,** 9 **Circuit Judges**

**.** 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,** 13 **Appellee ,**  14 15 **-v.- 10-1871-cr** 16 17 **DONNA TILLMAN, also known as Donna** 18 **Richards,** 19 **Defendant-Appellant**

**.** 20
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 21 **FOR APPELLANT:** Beth M. Farber, New York, New 22 York. 23 24 **FOR APPELLEE:** Joseph P. Facciponti, Andrew L. 25 Fish, forPreet Bharara, United 26 States Attorney for the Southern 27 District of New York, New York, 28 New York. 29 302 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 1 Court for the Southern District of New York (Swain, J. ). 2 3 **UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED** 4 **AND DECREED**that the judgment of the district court be 5
**AFFIRMED**

. 6 7 Donna Tillman was convicted, after a bench trial in the 8 United States District Court for the Southern District of 9 New York (Swain, J. ), of conspiracy to commit money 10 laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), money 11 laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) 12 and 2, and engaging in monetary transactions in property 13 derived from specified unlawful activities, in violation of 14 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957(a) and 2. On appeal, Tillman argues the 15 evidence presented at trial was insufficient as a matter of 16 law to support a judgment of conviction. We assume the 17 parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the 18 procedural history, and the issues presented for review. 19 20 “[A] defendant raising an appellate challenge to the 21 sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction faces a 22 heavy burden, because we must review the evidence in the 23 light most favorable to the government, drawing all 24 reasonable inferences in its favor.” United States v. 25 Gaskin , 364 F.3d 438, 459 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal quotation 26 marks omitted). “When evaluating whether the government’s 27 evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, we review 28 the separate pieces of evidence not in isolation but in 29 conjunction . . . .” In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. 30 Embassies in E. Afr. , 552 F.3d 93, 115 (2d Cir. 2008) 31 (internal quotation marks omitted). A defendant can prevail 32 on a sufficiency challenge only if this Court concludes that 33 “no rational factfinder could have found the crimes charged 34 proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Gaskin , 364 F.3d at 459- 35 60. “We apply this same deferential standard when we review 36 a verdict rendered by a judge after a bench trial.” United 37 States v. Mazza-Alaluf , 621 F.3d 205, 209 (2d Cir. 2010)

. 38 39 The evidence presented at trial is sufficient to 40 support the judgment of conviction. The money laundering 41 statute “reach[es] a person who knows that [s]he is dealing 42 with the proceeds of some crime[,] even if [s]he does not 43 know precisely which crime.” United States v. Maher , 108 44 F.3d 1513, 1526 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks 45 omitted). Tillman’s post-arrest statements support a 46 finding that she knew the money at issue was obtained 473 fraudulently: A federal agent testified that Tillman 1 admitted that Toybe Bennett, a key player in the money 2 laundering scheme, was involved in stealing cars or 3 identities and was not legitimately employed. The trial 4 testimony of the cooperating witness further supports the 5 conviction. While Tillman maintains that these witnesses 6 are unworthy of belief, the evaluation of the credibility of 7 witnesses falls to the trier of fact; this argument does not 8 present a basis for reversal of Tillman’s judgment of 9 conviction. SeeUnited States v. Glenn , 312 F.3d 58, 64 (2d 10 Cir. 2002). 11 12 Tillman allowed her coconspirators to make large 13 deposits into her bank account, and into other accounts 14 under her control; and, she made immediate withdrawals from 15 her accounts after these deposits were made. This behavior, 16 done without question, at least supports the inference that 17 Tillman consciously avoided learning the nature of the 18 activity in which she was involved while being aware of a 19 high probability that she was participating in an illegal 20 scheme. SeeUnited States v. Svoboda , 347 F.3d 471, 480 (2d 21 Cir. 2003); United States v. Finkelstein , 229 F.3d 90, 95 22 (2d Cir. 2000). 23 24 Tillman’s argument that there was insufficient evidence 25 of her intent to conceal, as required for conviction under 26 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), is without merit. Section 27 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) prohibits concealment of “the nature, the 28 location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the 29 proceeds of specified unlawful activity.” By her own 30 admission, Tillman believed that she was allowing money 31 belonging to Bennett to be deposited in accounts under her 32 control so that Bennett could avoid a restitution 33 obligation, which is more than sufficient to establish her 34 intent to conceal the ownership of the funds. 35 36 Having considered all of the arguments presented by 37 Tillman on appeal, we hereby **AFFIRM** the judgment of the 38 district court. 39 40 41 FOR THE COURT: 42 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 43 44