[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-13718

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00372-RWS-JKL-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERICK POWELL, 

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(April 29, 2019)

Before MARTIN, NEWSOM, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 18-13718 Date Filed: 04/29/2019 Page: 1 of 7 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Erick Powell appeals his conviction -- and his resulting 24-month sentence --

for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1343. No reversible error has 

been shown; we affirm.

In August 2015, Powell and Ahmad McCormick started a business in 

Atlanta called National Vocation Group (“NVG”). NVG advertised purported job 

openings for high-paying housekeeping and maintenance positions on job 

recruiting websites, including Indeed.com. In reality, none of the advertised job 

openings existed. During telephone and in-person interviews with job applicants, 

Powell and NVG telemarketers represented falsely that federal law required 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) training as a 

prerequisite to work in the advertised positions. Powell and McCormick charged

applicants $349 for OSHA training. None of NVG’s clients were hired for an 

advertised job opening.

A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Powell and 

McCormick with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and with wire fraud. 

McCormick pleaded guilty; Powell proceeded to trial. The jury found Powell 

guilty of one count of wire fraud (Count Two) and acquitted him of the remaining 

Case: 18-13718 Date Filed: 04/29/2019 Page: 2 of 7 
3

counts. Count Two alleged that Powell -- aided and abetted by McCormick --

engaged in wire fraud by “communicating with Indeed.com for the purpose of 

creating an online advertisement for a ‘Housekeeping Aide’ position on or about 

August 20, 2015.”

I.

On appeal, Powell contends that the district court erred in denying his postverdict motion for a judgment of acquittal, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c). 

Powell contends that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt 

that Powell participated knowingly in the fraudulent scheme or that Powell 

intended to defraud the victims. 

“We review de novo a district court’s denial of judgment of acquittal on 

sufficiency of the evidence grounds.” United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 

1303 (11th Cir. 2013). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, “we 

consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all 

reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the government’s favor.” Id. We

cannot overturn a jury’s verdict unless no “reasonable construction of the evidence 

would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable 

Case: 18-13718 Date Filed: 04/29/2019 Page: 3 of 7 
4

doubt.” Id. Because the “jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of 

the evidence,” the government need not “disprove every reasonable hypothesis of 

innocence.” United States v. Foster, 878 F.3d 1297, 1304 (11th Cir. 2018) 

(quotations omitted). “[W]hen the government relies on circumstantial evidence, 

the conviction must be supported by reasonable inferences, not mere speculation.” 

Rodriguez, 732 F.3d at 1303.

To obtain a conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, the 

government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant 

“(1) participated in a scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) with the intent to defraud; 

and (3) used, or caused the use of, interstate wire transmissions for the purpose of 

executing the scheme or artifice to defraud.” United States v. Machado, 886 F.3d 

1070, 1082-83 (11th Cir. 2018). The defendant’s intent to defraud may be inferred 

“from the defendant’s conduct and circumstantial evidence.” Id. at 1083.

A person who aids or abets the commission of an offense is punishable as a 

principal. 18 U.S.C. § 2. “[T]o prove that the defendant aided and abetted an 

offense, the government must establish that: (1) someone else committed the 

substantive offense, (2) the defendant committed an act that contributed to and 

furthered the offense; and (3) the defendant intended to aid in the commission of 

the offense.” United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2016).

Case: 18-13718 Date Filed: 04/29/2019 Page: 4 of 7 
5

Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence 

presented at trial was sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Powell was guilty of wire fraud. McCormick 

testified that he and Powell planned to open a business in Atlanta “selling OSHA” 

by advertising fictitious job openings. McCormick testified that both he and 

Powell posted online advertisements for specific fictitious “open and available” 

positions. McCormick also testified that Powell allowed McCormick to use 

Powell’s login credentials to post a fraudulent job advertisement on another job 

recruiting website on 19 August 2015: the day before the 20 August Indeed.com 

advertisement charged in Count Two. Although McCormick testified that he (not 

Powell) posted the 20 August advertisement, a factfinder could conclude 

reasonably that Powell knew about -- and allowed McCormick to use Powell’s 

Indeed.com account to post -- the 20 August advertisement. 

Sufficient circumstantial evidence also existed from which the jury could 

infer reasonably that Powell intended to defraud job applicants by representing 

falsely that jobs were available so that applicants would pay for OSHA training. 

Powell provided scripts to NVG’s telemarketers to use when contacting job 

applicants. The scripts repeated falsely that NVG had open and available positions 

and also informed applicants that an OSHA license was a required prerequisite for 

Case: 18-13718 Date Filed: 04/29/2019 Page: 5 of 7 
6

these positions. Powell conducted in-person interviews, during which he told 

applicants that they were required to complete -- and to pay for -- OSHA training. 

All job applicants were offered a job, to come, unless they refused to pay for 

OSHA training. Powell also directed telemarketers to end calls and to not followup with applicants who already had an OSHA license. In addition, NVG’s 

telemarketers were compensated based on the number of applicants who paid for 

OSHA training: not based on the number of job placements. No job applicant was 

hired for an advertised position.

Because the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to allow the jury to 

find Powell guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the district court committed no error 

in denying Powell’s motion for a judgment of acquittal. That the evidence might 

also support an alternative theory of innocence is not enough to warrant 

overturning the jury’s verdict. See Foster, 878 F.3d at 1304.

II.

Powell also argues that the district court considered impermissibly conduct 

for which Powell was acquitted when the district court applied sentencing 

Case: 18-13718 Date Filed: 04/29/2019 Page: 6 of 7 
7

enhancements based on the total financial loss and number of victims. As a result, 

Powell contends that his sentence violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. 

Powell, however, makes no argument that the government failed to satisfy 

its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the total financial loss 

calculation or the number of victims. In addition, Powell’s 24-month sentence is 

well below the statutory maximum sentence of 240 months’ imprisonment. 

Accordingly, we reject Powell’s constitutional challenge to his sentence as

foreclosed by this Court’s binding precedent. See United States v. Maddox, 803 

F.3d 1215, 1220 (11th Cir. 2015) (a sentencing court may consider conduct for 

which a defendant was acquitted if the government proves the fact by a 

preponderance of the evidence and the defendant is sentenced below the statutory 

maximum sentence); United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 

2006) (same).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-13718 Date Filed: 04/29/2019 Page: 7 of 7