## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 08

- 3216 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. B EAT RICZ R AMIRE Z, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:06- cr-00809- 5

—Jo hn W. Darrah, Judg e.

A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 27, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 3, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C ircu it Judge. Beatr i cz Ram i re z w as char ged wi th o ne co un to fwi r e fr a ud i n v i o l a t i o n o f1 8 U. S

. C. § 13 43

. F o l l o wi nga j ur y t r i al, sh e was c o nv i ct ed. S he was s en te nc ed to a t er m o fi m pr i so nm en t o f1 8 m o nths and or dered to pay re sti tuti on. Ram i re z appeal ed her co nv i ct i o n, a r g ui ngtha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t e rr ed byg i ving the j ury an o str i ch i nstr ucti on a nd by r efusi ng to i ncl ud e l anguage st ating tha t m er e neg l i gen c e d i d not2 N o. 08

- 3216

su ppo r t a fi ndi ngo fkno wl edg e. F o r the f o l l o wi ng r e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Lu i s Uribe was a s u cces sful m or tga ge bro kerf or Fr ee d om M or tg ag e in th e E l g i n, I llin ois are a. B u t h is l eg i ti m at e su cc es s was no t g o o d en o ug h f o r hi m . So h e dev i se d a fr au dul en t m o r tgage s ch eme, us i ngthe i d en tit ies of form er clie n ts w ith goo d cr ed it t o ob ta in m ortgage finan cing for person s w ho c o u ld not q ua li fy f orm ortgages and padd i ng hi s wal l et i n the proce ss. The schem e ba si cal l y work ed l i ke thi s: A per son w i th po o r o r no c r e di t wo ul d fi nd a ho us e he o r s he wa nt e d to buy, and U ribe use d the nam e a nd i denti fier s of another per so n in n eg o ti at i ngthe pur chase c o nt r ac t an d a ppl y i ng for fi na nc ing. Som etim es th e nam es an d i d en tifiers used w er e those o fvar i ous ind i vi du al s, i nc lu d i ng J or ge I tor al de, Gri sel da Sanchez , and U ribe’ s br othe r, Carl os, w ho agr ee d t o s el l the i r c r edi t hi st o r i es t o no n- qua l i fy i ng buy er s. On o th ero cc as i ons , Uribe us ed th e na m es a nd iden ti fi er s he ha d s to l enfr o m f o r m erc l i en ts
. The n h e ar ra nged f or som eone to use a f ake i denti fi cati on car d in the nam e o fthe perso n w hose i denti ty had been s tol en to po se a s th e buy er a t t he c l o sing . Af te r the c l o sing, the per s o n wi th p o o r o r n o c r e d i two u l d mo v e i n t o t he ho us e an d t r y t o make the mor tg ag e pay m en ts
. The re cor d does no t d i scl ose thatthe ti tl e t o the pr oper ty was e ve r pa ss ed to tha t per so n. U ribe di d busi ness w i th B eat ri cz Ram i re z, a l i censed r eal est ate age nt, ove r a thre e- yea r peri od beginning i n 20 03.N o. 08

- 3216 3

Sh e c onc ede d the e xi s t en c e ofthe f ra udul en ts c he m e and 1 s t i pul at ed thatonor abo utAugus t31, 20 05 , a t ru th- i n- l en di ng disc los ure stat em ent pu rportedly s igned by M ari a M oreno, an inters t at e wir e c om m uni c at i on, was f ax ed fro m I l l i noi s to Firs t NL C Financial Ser vices LL C in D ee rfi el d B each, Flori da. Thi s c om m u nicat i on was the bas i s f or the wir e- f ra ud c ount wi th whi c h s he wa s c ha r ge d. R am ire z b eg an w or kin g a s a re a lto r for Sta rc k R ea lty in El g i n, I l l i n o i s i n ab o u t O c t o b e r 2 0 0 3

. ( S h e h a d wo r k e d a sh or t t im e a s a rea lt o r fo r an ot h er offic e p rior to th at .) Sh e w as tra in ed ab ou t a rea l es ta te ag en t’s res p on sib i l i ti es, i ncl ud i ng how to fi l l o ut co ntra cts. Between A p rilan d m id -J uly of 2005 , Ram irez acted as the bu yer’s agen t in seven frau d ulen t trans action s tha t w ere p art ofU ribe’ s s chem e. The onl y i ssue at tr i al w as w hether R am i re z knowingl y par ti ci pated i n the schem e. To e stabl i sh 1 k no wi ngpa r ti ci pat i o n, the g o ve r nm en t p r es en te d the tes ti m ony ofU ribe; the tes ti m ony ofRaf aelCruz, ano ther par ti ci pan t i n the s ch eme; s ta tement s byRa m i r ez t o the F BI dur i ngi ts i nv es ti g at i o n o fthe fr au d; Ra m i r ez ’ s g r an d j ur y t es ti m o ny ; a nd e vi den ce o fnumer o us s us pi ci o us ci rcum sta nces surro und i ng the fra ud ule nt tr ansact i ons. R a mi r e z t e s t i fi e d a tt r i a l o n h e r b e h a l fa n d d e n i e d kn o wi ngl y par ti ci pati ng i n the schem e. U ribe, wh o w as coo perat i ng with the g ove rnm ent, tes ti fi ed that w hen he had a cl i ent forwh om he was going to applyf ora fra ud ule nt l oan and w ho had not yetf ound a hom e, he r eferr ed hi m o r her to Ram i re z.4 N o. 08

- 3216 A ccor ding to U ribe, bo th h e and the per sons re fer re d i nfo rm ed Ram i re z that these i nd i vi du al s co uld not quali fy f o r fi na nc i ngi n the i r o wn na mes . R a mi r ez w or ked di re ctl y w ith these b uyer s, sho w i ng the m houses, and th us knew thei r nam es. Once the buyer f ound a house he o r she w an te d to l i ve i n, Ram i re z fi l l ed out a f or m r eal est ate purchase co ntra ct. A t fi rs t, R am ire z fi l led in t h e b u ye r’s n am e, an d U rib e w ou ld r etur n i t to he r c r o ss ed o r whi te d o ut
. Ev en tu al l y he ask ed herf orbl ank pu rchas e contr act f or m s, i nd i cating to he r, he c l ai m s, tha t th e t it l e co m pan i es wer e co m pl aini ng ab o utthe c ha ng es i n the c o nt r ac ts
. Ra m i r ez co m pl i ed an d g av e hi m b l an kc o nt r ac t f o r m s. The n U ribe fi l l ed i n the bl an k s wi ththe na m e o fthe pe r so n w hos e i den ti tyhe had sto l en and r etur ned the c om p lete d contr act to R a mi r e z t o p r o v i d e t o th e s e l l e r o r l i s t i n g a g e n t
. T h e n a me o f th e per so n to whom Ra m i r ez sh o wed th e house and w hom she knew w oul d l ive in the house did not appear a nyw here o n the purchase contr act. U ribe t est i fi ed that Ram i rez ask ed hi m wh er e he w as g et tingthe i den ti ties he us ed to o bt ain the fr au dul en t l o an s, a nd he t o l d he r tha t he w as us i ngthe na m es a nd i d e n t i t i e s off o r me r c l i e n t s a s th e p u r p o r t e d b u y e r s . He al so tes ti fi ed that h e to l d Ram i re z that a thi rd per son wi th f a k e i d e n t i fi c a t i o n i n th e n a me o fth e f o r me r c l i en t w ou ld atte nd the closing an d sign as th e pu rp orted bu yer. U rib e claim ed th at R am ire z ask ed h im h ow h e w as a b le to g ets o m an y mor tg ag e appl i ca ti o ns us i ngo ne per so n’ s i den ti ty, a nd he t o l d he r tha t as l o nga s th e l oans cl ose d w ithin a thi rty- to si xty- day per i od ofea ch o the r , se v e r a l c l o s i n g s c o u l d t a k e p l a c e w i th th e s a meN o. 08

- 3216 5 i denti ty

— cre ditr epor ts w er e no t updated i n a s hor ter tim e pe riod. U ribe al so testifi ed that he h ad a few conv ersations w ith Ra m irez in w hic h she ex p ressed conc ern ove r th e fra ud ule nt l oan tr ansact i ons. A ccor ding to Uribe , s he i ndi ca ted th at sh e k ne w w ha t he was do i ng w as not ri ght a nd questi oned hi m wh etherhe knew wh at he was doi ng. U ribe furtherte sti fi ed thathe instr ucted Ram i re z t o nego ti ate a sel l er ’ s co ncessi on, w h ich r equi re d the s el l er to pa y a s pec i fi ed amoun t pur po r te dl y to war d c l o sing co st s, i n the pur ch as e co nt r ac ts
. He s ai d tha t he e xpla i ned to he r th at the c onces si on was nece ssa ryto pay hi s co m m i ssi on a nd to pay th e perso ns wh o att ended th e cl o sing s po singa s th e pur po r te d b uy er s, i nc l udi ng Raf aelCruz. A ccor ding to U ribe, Ram i re z s ai d t hat was fin e w ith h er . Th e e vid en c e w as t h at R am ire z d id , in f act, n egoti ate se l l er ’ s co ncessi ons i n the pu rchas e contr ac ts invol ved i n so m e o fthe seve n fra ud ule nt tr ansac tio n s f or w hi ch she w as the buyer ’ s age nt, i ncl ud i ng a house at 1365 Kaskask i a. ( A n d , in f act, Ram i re z e ven adm i tte d that s he neg oti ate d the s el l er ’ s co ncessi on o n th e K as ka sk ia p ro p er ty .) Coopera ti ng witne ss Raf aelCruz t est i fi ed that h e m et Uribe i n 2 00 4 w he n Cr uz r efi na nc ed hi s ho m e. Cr uz w anted to buy a new hom e, so he re turned to U ribe. U ribe to l d C ruz tha t he c o ul d no t qua l i fy f o r a l o anb ut i nd i cate d that he c ou l d hel p Cruz ge t a l oan

— at a co st. Cruz und er sto od thathe woul d pay so m eone t o si gn the c o nt r a c t s f o r hi m. Ur ib e r e fe r r e d Cr uz t o Ra mi re z t o fin d a h om e. R am ire z s h ow ed p ro p er tie s t o C ru z a n d h is6 N o. 08

- 3216

w i fe, J uana A ngel i to, an d theydeci ded to buy one at 286 C ha p ar r al

. Uribe a ppl i ed f o r a mor tg ag e l o anf o r the proper ty i n th e nam e o fJ or ge I tor al de, wh o had agr eed to s el l hi s cr edi t hi st o r y . I tor al de at te nde d the c l o sing f o r 2 8 6 Cha par r a l a n d s i gn e d th e c o n t r a c t s i n h i s o wn nam e. U ribe t est i fi ed that Ram i re z knew thatU ribe appli ed f orthe m or tga ge usi ng I tor al de’s nam e be cause U rib e t old h er so an d be c au se sh e k n ew th at C ru z p aid I tor al de $5, 000 f orthe use ofhi s nam e a nd i denti ty

— Cr uz had com pla i ned to her about how m u c h he ha d to pay I tor al de. I n ear l y 20 05 U ribe a ske d C ruz i fhe woul d be abl e t o ob ta infa k e ID s, u sin g n am es an d id en tifie rs U rib e w ou ld provi de. U ribe a l so ask ed Cruz to a tt en d r eales tat e c los in gs p os in g a s t h e p er s on s w h os e n am es w ou ld a pp e a r o n the f a k e I Ds a nd c o nt r a cts. C ruz a g r e e d t o do so . C ru z a tt en d ed atl ea st th re e c los in gs p os in g a s L u is Gonzal ez, a f or m ercl i en t o fU ribe’ s whose i denti ty U ribe ha d s t o l e n. Cr uz t e s t i fi e d a tt r i a l tha tthe fi r st G onzal ez cl osing i nvol ved a proper ty at 212 H i l l, wh i ch he b eli ev ed was pur ch as ed byt wo y o ungpe o pl e. Cr uz sa i d tha t Uribe dr o ve hi m t o the closin ga nd o n the wa y, the y di s c us s e d tha tR a mi r e z wo ul d b e the r e . Uribe to l d Cr uz tha t he woul d a dvi se Ra m i re z th atCr uz was p o s i n ga s G o n z a l e z b e c a u s e s h e a l r e a d y kn e w Cr uz fro m h elp ing hi m fi nd hi s ho m e a t 2 86 Ch aparr al

. U ribe te s tifie d th at h e d id , in fac t, te ll Ra m ire z t h at C ru z w ou ld be pos in g as Gonzal ez, and she l aughed and sai d som ethingl i k e “ a s lo nga s the do c ume nt s ma t c h a nd the I Ds m atch, ” i t was fi ne with her. Cruz t est i fi ed that Ram i re z a r r i v e d l a t e a tth e c l o s i n go n 2 1 2 H i l l, b u tw a s i n t i me to see hi m si gn the cl osing docum ents.N o. 08

- 3216 7 Ram i re z, however, te stifi ed at tr i althatshe did not at te nd the c l o singf o r 2 12 H il l. She al so t es ti fi ed th atthe b u y e r s we r e Al ej an dr o C a n o a n d h i s wi fe , n o tth e “ t wo young perso ns, ” a s cl ai m ed by C ru z. Ram i re z s tat ed that sh e pr epa r ed th e pur ch as e co nt r ac t f o r the Ca no s an d th ens en t i t to the s el l i nga g en t f o r a ppr o va l

. The contr act w as approve d. A fte r re cei vi ng the si gned co nt r ac t fr o m the s el l er, R am i r ez f o r war ded i t to the att or ney a s wel l as the l ender, U ribe. S he expl ai ned that U rib e h ad refe rre d t h e C an os to h er . Sh e s u b se q u en tly re cei ved a l ett er, d at ed M ay 12, 20 05, fro m the Canos’ l aw yer, S al vadorLopez, i nd i cating tha t there had b ee n a c h a n ge in t h e b u ye r an d th at th e b u ye r w as L u is Gonzal ez. The seco nd Gonzal ez cl osing i nvol ved a proper ty at 1238 Surrey . R a m irez show ed the h om e to A lej an d ro Espinoza and anoth er y oung m al e. U ribe t est i fi ed that Ram i re z a tte nd ed the cl osing on 12 38 Sur re y. Ram i re z t e s t i fi e d tha ts he a r r i v e d l a t e a tthe cl o s i ng, b uta dm i tt ed th ats he s aw Cr uz i n the r o o m wher e the c l o sing to o kpl ac e. S he al so t es ti fi ed th ata fte r the c l o sing, s he re cei ved a cal l fro m Cruz, wh o sai d, “I ’ m Raf aelCruz, L u is G on za lez , or w h oe ve r I’m su p p os ed to be .” The thi r d Go nz al ez c l osing, w hi cht o o kpl ac e i n J une 2005 , i nvol ved a proper ty at 386 Vin c ent Pl ace. Ram i re z sh o we d th i s p r o p e r t y t o D e n n i s D a v i s , a ni n d i v i d u a l s he had m et at a s hop p i ng m al l wh i l e l oo ki ng f orsungl ass es. A t t ri alRam i re z ad m i tte d that s he r efer re d D avi s t o Uribe f o r a l o an an d di sc us se d wi th hi m th at ifhe did notqual i fy fora lo an , U ribe c oul d find so m eone to8 N o. 08

- 3216

ass i st hi m , wh at she r efer re d to as a “ co- si gner . ” Ram i re z ex pl aine d tha t s he under st o o d a “ co - si g ne r ” to b e so m eo ne who si g ne d f o r a p rop erty o n b eh al fo fthe pe r so n who w oul d l i ve ther e. S he cl ai m ed n ot t o know that there was anythi ng wrong i n te llin g hi m that

. Ram i re z a dm i tte d th ats he at tended th e cl o singf o r 3 86 Vi nc en t Pl ac e, b ut aga i n cl ai m ed to hav e ar rived l ate
. But she al so adm i tte d th at sh e s aw C ru z a t t h e c los i n g a n d th atsh e k n ew , atthe cl os i ng, thatCruz was cl ai m i ng to be Lu i s Gonzal ez. J ose Bahena tes ti fi ed at tr i al that he had d iscussed pur ch asi ng a ho m e wi thUribe who t o l d hi m tha t he c ou ld n otge t a loa n in h is ow n n am e. U rib e a lso to ld B ahena that Uribe c oul d get hi m a l oan anyway

— U ribe w oul d g e ta c o - s i g ne r . Ba he na s a i d tha tR a mi re z showed hi m a house at 1365 K ask ask i a, w hi ch h e l i ked, so sh e to l d hi m to ge t to g ethe r wi thUribe t o g eta l o an . The c on tr ac t d at e o n th e p u rc h as e c on tr ac t fo r 13 65 K as ka sk ia w as J uly 14, 2005

. Bahena tes ti fi ed that he co n tacted U ribe a nd ev entual l y a tten d ed a cl osing f orthe proper ty. B ah e n a s a id that U ribe and M aria M oreno , his co-si gn er, al so a tt en ded the c l o sing, b utRa m i r ez di d no t. Ba he na te st i fi ed to hi s unde r st an di ngthat bo thhe a nd M o r en o w ou ld si gn the cl osing papers and that he was supp ose d to payhe r $ 1, 00 0 f o r he l pi nghi m . Howev er, Ba he na sai d that he d id n ot si gn anypapers atthe cl osing. U ribe ha d t o l d hi m tha t he di d not qu al i fy a nd o nl y M o r en o quali fi ed. A fterthe cl osing Bahena m et R am i re z t o obt ai n the key s t o the ho use. F BIS pec i alAgent Br i anE. S m i tht es ti fi ed th atdur i ng the s um m ero f20 06 he was i nvol ved in an i nvest i gat i onN o. 08

- 3216 9 ofm or tga ge fra ud in th e Elg i n, I l l i noi s a re a. In the cour se o f hi s i nv es ti g at i o n he det er m i ne d th at Ra m i r ez w as th e re al toro n sev en of tw enty- one proper ti es he had i denti fi ed as havi ng be en o btained w i th fra ud ule nt m or tga ge s. S m i th i nter vi ew ed Ram i re z in J une 200 6. Ram i re z tol d Sm i th thatLuis U ribe was a m or tga ge bro ker w ho r efer re d cl i ents t o her

— i n f act, i n 200 5 the m aj or i ty of R am i re z’ s r efer ra l s were fro m U ribe

— an d s he r e fe r r e d c l i e nt s to hi m. S he s a i d tha ts he h a d d o ne a pproxi m ate l y 3 3 pro perti es w i th U ribe o ver a two-y ear peri od and had atten d ed betw een e i ght a nd te n cl osings w i th hi m . Ram i re z adm i tte d that s he f ound hom es f orpers on s she knew co uld notqual i fy form or tgag es

— perso ns r efer re d by Uribe. S he a lso to l d Sm i th th at co - si g ne r s pur ch as ed th e pr o per ti es an d th e p ersons l i vi ng i n the hom es pai d the m or tga ges . R am i re z a dvis ed th e ag e ntt h a ts h e e a r n e d t wo a n d o n e - h a l fp e r c e n tc o mm i ss i o n o n the s al es pr i ce o fthe ho m es o n whi chs he w or ked with U ribe. R am ire z i ndi ca te d t o Age ntS m i ththa t i n the be g i nni ngs he fi l l ed o utthe pur ch ase c o nt r ac ts wi ththe i nf o r m at i o n s he r ec ei ve d fr o m Uribe o n th e per so ns w ho wa nt e d t o b uya p r o pe r t y . Ho we v e r, b e c a us e tho se per so ns di d no t qua li fy, the t i tl e co m pan y was g et ting frust ra ted with the c hanges i n the contracts, and U ribe th e r e f o r e as k e d f o r b l a n kc o n t r a c t s , w h i c h s h e g a v e h i m. R am ire z a lso sa id th at U rib e h ad to l d h er th at cr ed it re port s were up dated eve ry60 to 90 days or s o an d that m u ltip le pr op er tie s p u rc h as ed w ou ld n otsh ow u p w ith in th att i m e per i o d. Bef o r e i nt er vi ewi ngRa m i r ez , Age nt S m i thha d b ee n un ab l e to i den ti fy who ha d o bt aine d the10 N o. 08

- 3216
sto l en IDs use d i n the m or tga ge schem e. Ram i re z i denti fi ed Cruz as the perso n w ho di d that. Age ntS m i tht es ti fied th at Ra m i r ez t o l d hi m tha t sh e att ended at l eas t three cl osings whe re C ruz si gned as Gonzal ez. Sm i th i nquir ed about a proper ty at 1238 S urr ey R oad , and Ram irez tol d him that i t w as on e of the p rop erti es f orwh i ch C ruz si gned as Gonzal ez. Ram i re z a l so sai d that Gonza l ez’ s a dd re ss on the co ntra ct for12 38 Sur re y was l i ste d as 2 12 H il l

. A nd Ram i re z vo l unteer ed to S m i ththa t sh e at te nde d the c losi ng f o r 2 12 Hi l l a nd aga i n saw Cruz si gn a s G onzal ez. A gent Sm i th as ked Ra m i r ez abo ut 1 365 Kas k as k i a, a nd s he t o l d hi m tha t sh e f ound that pr oper ty f orso m eone nam ed Bahe n a. Sm i th to ld her that the nam ed buyero n the proper ty w as M ar ia M or en o, a n d R am ire z v olu n te er ed th at if it w as M ar ia M or eno, i t w asn’ t the re al M ar i a M or eno because U ribe had ot h er p eopl e s i gni ng and posi ng as M ar i a M or eno. Ra m i r ez offer ed th atCr uz ’ s wi fe, s i st ero r g i r l fr i en d, s he was n’ t s ure w hi ch, ha d s i g ne d a s M ar i a M o r en o a nd anothe r pu rpor ted buye r, Ol ga Trej o. Ra m i rez also to l d Age ntS m i ththa t sh e ha d g o ne t o the m al l to purchase sungl ass es a n d m et a per son w ho had po o r o r no c r edi t, b utwant ed to b uy a ho m e. Acc ordi ng to S m i th, Ra m i r ez sai d tha t sh e to l d the man tha t sh e had a fri end, Luis U ribe, wh o coul d find a co

- si gnerto buy the p r o pe r t y f o r h i m a tthe c o s to f$ 1 , 5 0 0

. R a mi r ez adv i se d S m ith th ats he f o und thi s per so n a ho m e an d att ended the cl osi n g. A gent Sm i th dete rm i ned thro ugh hi s i nv es ti g ati on th atthe pr o per tywas 3 86 Vi nc en t Pl ace, with a purchas e c on tract date o fA pri l 19 , 20 05, and that the purpor ted buye r w as Lu i s Gonzal ez.N o. 08

- 3216 11 A s m enti oned, Ram i re z t est ifi ed bef or e the gr and j ury. T he govern m en t read th e tran script of he r gran d j ury te st i m o ny a t tr i al

. Ra m i r ez ’ s g r an d j ur y t es ti m o ny r epe at ed m ucho fw ha t sh e ha d s ai d dur i ngAge nt S mi th ’ s i n t e r v i e w . S h e t e s t i fi e d th a t o v e r th e p a s t t wo yea rs she did approxi m ate l y 3 3 r eal

- est ate sa l es tr ansacti ons w i th Luis U ribe forwh i ch sh e w as the r eales tat e age nt f orthe buyer s o fthe properti es. S he adm i tte d that f oral l o fthe proper ti es, herbuye r w as supp ose d t o l i ve i n the proper ty and pay the m or tga ge, but anothe r p e r s o n ’ s n am e w as on th e m or tg ag e; th at sh e w ou ld se nd Ur ibe c o nt r acts a nd he woul d l ethe r kno w tha t th e p erson did not q ua li fy and he n eed e d a not he r person ’s nam e o n the c ontr act; thatas the re al tori t no rm al l y was her re sp on sibi l i ty to w ri te up a contr act f orthe proper ty i n the nam e o fherbuye r; and that U rib e u ltim ate l y r eq u es te d bla n k c on tr ac t fo rm s fro m h er an d w ou ld fill in the info rm ati on hi m self. Ram i re z furtherte sti fi ed that she a tte nd ed at l eas t thre e cl osings where Cruz showed i denti fi cati on ind i cating tha t he w as Lu i s Gonzal ez an d s i g ne d the mort g ag e co nt r ac t an d t i tl e o fthe pr o per tya s Gon za l ez . S he a dm i tt ed th ats he kne w Cru z was n’tGo nz al ez . S he a l so a dm i tt ed th ato n o ne occ a s i o n Cr uz c a l l e d he r a nd i nt r o du c e d hi mse l fas Raf aelCruz a nd then cor re cted hi m sel f, sa yi n g h e w as Lu i s Gonzal ez orwh oev erhe was s up p os ed to be

. Ra m i r ez fur th ert es ti fi ed thats he a tt en ded th e cl o sing f or38 6 Vi ncent Pl ace i n J une 200 5 a nd bel i eved that was w hen she le arned that Cruz and G onzal ez w er e no t th e sa m e per so n.12 N o. 08

- 3216 Befo re the gr and j ury Ram i re z a l so tes ti fi ed that she had a con ve rs at ion w ith U rib e in w h ich sh e said th a t L u is Gonzal ez w as buyi ng so m an y pr oper ti es so f ast, that sh e cou ldn ’t dra w u p th e con tracts , and w as em barra ss ed to sh ow th e c on tr ac ts aro u n d h er offic e. S h e s aid th atUribe ha d tol d he r no t to wor r y, a pe r so n c o ul d b uy as m an y prop erties as he w an ts, an d cred it r e p o rts are onl y updated eve rythr ee m onths, s o the pr oper ti es w ou l d n o t s h ow u p . A t t ria l, R am ire z t es tifie d th at th is conve rs ati on had ta ken pl ace bef or e any o fthe Gonzal ez cl osings. Ram i re z al so tes ti fi ed at tr i althat she sol d C ruz hi s ho use at 286 Ch ap ar ra l and that she knew the house w as not pu rchas ed i n Cruz’ s nam e, but w as si gned f ori n J or ge I toralde ’s nam e beca us e C ruz cou ld n ot qu ali fy for a m or tga ge. S he cl ai m ed that eve ry t i m e Uribe g ave her anothe r perso n’s nam e, she to ok i t a s a “co

- si gner . ” Though Ram i re z r eadi l y a dm i tte d t h at she knew wh o Cruz w as w hen she saw hi m at a Gonzal ez cl osing, she w as quickto den y th at sh e ac tu al l y wi tn es se d Cr uz si g n an y c l o sing docum ents. S he o ffer ed the expla nati on that s he went to th e cl o singl at e. Buts he c onc ede d tha t sh e k ne w the p ro p erty had been a pp l i ed f orand si gned f ori n Luis Gonzal ez’ s nam e. Ram i re z t est i fi ed that sh e atte nd ed the cl osing o n 201 N or th 9th St re et. Ol ga Trej o w as the purpor ted buy erf o r tha t prope r ty
. Ra m i r ez a l so t es ti fi ed th ats he at te nde d th e cl o sing o n 21 85 H ea th erLa ne . Co

- defen dan t Gri sel da S a nc he z wa s the p ur po r t e d b uy e r f o r tha tp r o per ty
. Ra m i r ez de ni ed k no wi ng th at M o r en o was no t g o i ngN o. 08

- 3216 13
to be l i vi ng i n thes e pr oper ti es. R am ire z e xplained that she o nl y l ear ned that as a r esul t o fthe i nvesti gat i on i nt o the mo r t g a g e fr a ud

. A t t ria l R am ire z a d m itt ed th at so m e of U rib e’s refe rra ls involved pu rch asing h om es in t h e n a m e of oth er pe rso ns ’ i den ti ti es a nd tha t sh e se nt hi m b l an kc o nt r ac ts s o he c ou ld fill inth e n am e o f th e p er so n w h o w ou ld ac tu ally s i g n f o r th e h o m e . S h e a g r e e d th a t s h e h a d f o u n d a h o me f orJ ose Bahena at13 65 K ask as ki a, drew up a contr act, d ated J ul y 1 4, 2 00 5, whi chs he s en t to Uribe , a nd tha t he changed i t t o show M ar i a M or eno as the b u ye r. Ram i re z al so adm i tte d that s he di d these thin gs kno w i ng tha t Bahena, n ot M or eno, would l i ve i n the house. Ram i re z claim ed , how ever, to believe th at M oreno w as a co-signer. She also claim ed th a t h er testim ony before the gran d j ury and her sta tem ent t o A gent Sm i th duri ng hi s int er view that, if 1365 Kaskask i a was purchase d i n the nam e o f M ar i a M or eno then i t wasn’tthe re alM ar i a M or eno, was b as ed o n a c oncl usi on s he had drawn fro m herawaren es s a b ou t t h e in ve st iga tio n . Sh e m ad e t h e s am e c laim wi th res pec t to he r s ta te m en t to Age ntS m i ththa t sh e k ne w Cr uz h a d a wo manwh o l i v e d wi th hi m a nd a t t e nd

i ng cl osings, si gni ng as M ar i a M or eno and Olga Trej o. Ram i re z deni ed th at U ribe instr ucted herto nego ti ate a se l l e r ’ s c o n c e s s i o n a n d d e n i e d th a t h e t o l d he r he n ee d ed a se ller’ s c on c es sio n s o h e a n d C ru z c ou ld get p aid. She ackn ow ledge d that i t w as th e realtor’ s r espons ibi l i tyt o ne g o ti at e an y ty pe o fs el l er ’ s co nc es si o n, how eve r. Ram i re z furtherdeni ed knowing th at U ribe woul d t ak e hi s co m m i ss i o n fr o m the s el l er ’ s co nc es si o n, even thou gh she ad m itted she k n e w the loans w ere14 N o. 08

- 3216 1 0 0 % fi na nc e d a nd tha tthe buye r s h a d n o c a s h o n ha nd

. A nd she d eni ed any knowle dge o ff ake I Ds. S he al so den i ed k no wi ng l y pa r ti ci pat i ngi n as ch eme t o de fr au d and she deni ed eve r i ntending to defr aud anyone. M ar y Rob erts, the mana g ero fthe S ta r ckRe al tyEl g i n, I l l i noi s, offi ce, tes ti fi ed at tr i al

. Rober ts had 3 1 y ear s’ ex per i en ce i n r ea l e st at e an d was a l i cense d a g en t an d bro ker

. S he te sti fi ed that sh e h ired Ram i re z in l ate 20 03 and that S tar ck Real ty tr ai ns i ts ag en ts o n the i m port ance of accura cy i n draw i ng up sal es contr acts . Rob er ts tes ti fi ed abo ut the usual r eales tat e t ra nsacti on : t h e r eal est ate bu ye r’s ag ent woul d com ple te the c ontr act w i th the b uyer, have the buyersi gn i t, and then pr es en t i t t o the list in g agent w ho pre sents i t t o the s el l er, and once the p a r t i e s r e ac h a n a g r e e men t, the c o nt r a c ti s s i g ne d, initi aled , da ted and prov ided to the attorn eys an d l en d er. Ro be r ts te st i fi ed th at i n S ept embe r 20 05 , whi l e co ve r i ng for R am ire z w h o w a s o n va c at ion, sh e fie ld ed so m e c alls fro m se l l er s’ ag ents about Ram i re z’ s t ra nsacti ons. Robe rt s p u l l e d th e fi l e s i n qu e s t i o n an d di s c o v e r e d th a tth e s a me l ender and sam e atto rneywere i nvol ved i n each tr ansacti on, wh i ch al ar m ed herso m ew hat. W hen Ram i re z r etu r ne d , R o b e r t s s p o k e wi th h e r ab o u th e r c o n c e r n s abo ut thi s patt er n, as ked heri fev er yt h in g was o kay, and ask ed her to use a di ffer ent a tto rneyo r len d er . Ram i re z r esponded thatev er ythin g w as oka y

— she had as ked Uribe an d he said not to w orry, he w ou ld take ca re of he r. Rober ts al so tes ti fi ed that i n 200 4

— i n c l u d i n gth e t i me fra m e o f th e m or tg ag e scam

— R a mi r e z e a rn e d c o mmi s si o ns o fa r o und $ 16 , 00 0 o n wr i tt en c o nt r ac ts o f$ 70 0, 00 0 an dN o. 08

- 3216 15

A s the co u rt recen tly exp lain ed , this instru ction d eriv es its 2 nam e fro m t h e incor rec t bel ie f“thatost ri ches w hen fri ghtened bu ry thei r head in the s and

. ” U ni t ed Sta t es v. Bl ack, 530 F. 3d 596, 6 0 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ), cert
. gran te d , 12 9 S. C t. 23 79 ( 20 09 )

. I n t ru th, w he n an ostrich senses d an g er and can ’ t ru n aw ay , “it fl o p s to the gr ound a nd r em ai ns s t i l l, with i t s he ad and n ec k fl atonthe g round i n f ro nt of i t ” and m er el y l ooks as i f i t has buri ed i ts h ea d in th e sa n d

. Id. (cit a tio no m itt ed ). i n 200 5 herea rned co m m i ssi ons had cl i m bed to $5 8, 550 on w rit te n c on tr ac ts of ap p ro x im at ely $5 m illio n . T h is m ade Ram i re z the to p agenti n t h e St ar ck Real ty E lgi n offi ce th at year.

II. A N A L Y S IS R am ire z c on te n d s t h at th e d i st ric t c ou rterr ed in g i v i ngthe o s t r i c h ( c o ns c i o us o r de l ib e r a t e a v o i da nc e) i nstr uction because the gov ernm ent f ai l ed to pro du ce an y e vi den ce tha t she d el ibe r at ely a vo i ded l ea r ni ngthe truth. S he a ss er ts tha t th e g o ve r nm en t m i su se d the ost r i c h i ns t r uc t i o n i n a n e ff o r tt o c o nv i nc e the j ur y that a r eas onabl e perso n i n herposi ti on would have i n q u i r e d fu r the r an d d i s c o v e r e d th e t r u th

. S h e a l s o c o mplain s that the instr ucti on di d not incl ud e l anguage sta tin g that m er e neg l i gence was i nsuffi ci ent t o prove knowle dge.

A . Givi ng t he O st r i ch I nstructi on 2 The di st r i ctc o ur t instru cte d the j ur ytha t to s us ta i n the c h ar ge of w ire frau d , th e g ov er n m en t m u st p ro ve , inter16 N o. 08

- 3216 alia , th at th e d efe n d an t “ kn ow i n g ly d ev ise d or p ar tic ipat ed i n th e s c h e me t o d e fr a u d , a s d e s c r ib e d i n the i ndi c t men t
. ” T he c o ur tfur the r i ns t r uc t e d: W hen the phrase “kno w i ngl y” i s use d i n thes e i nstr ucti ons, i t m eans that the defendant r eal i zed what he o r s h e wa s d o i n ga n d wa s a wa r e o fthe nature o fhi s o r her conduct, and did notact th ro u gh ign or an c e, m ist ak e o r ac c id en t. K n ow ledge m ay be pr ove d by the defen d an t’ s co nd uct, an d by allthe facts and circum s t a n ces su rro und i ng the cas e. You m ay i nfe r knowle dge fro m a com bi nati on o f suspi ci on a nd i nd i ffer ence to the t ruth. I fyo u fi nd thata perso n had a s tr ong suspi ci on that thi ngs were notwh at they see m ed orthatso m eo ne had wi thhe l d s o m e i m po r ta ntf ac ts , y ets hut her eye s for fearo fwh at she would l ear n, yo u m ay concl u d e th at she a cted know i ngl y, as Ihave u se d th e w or d

. This i nstr ucti on i s s ubs ta n tially the sa m e a s Instr ucti on 4. 06 o fth e F e d e r a l C r i mi n a l J u r y In s t r u c t i o n s o fthe Seven th Circu it ( 1999 ), bu t m ore on th e sim il arity l ater. W e r evi ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n t o g i ve the o st r i chi ns truct i o n f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, vi ewi ngthe evi dence i n the l i ght m ostfa vo ra bl e t o the g ove rnm ent. U ni t e d S t at e s v . Carani, 492 F.3d 867, 873 (7th C ir. 2007), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 93 2 (2 008)

. Ou r r e v i e w i s l i mi t e d, see ki ng to deter m i ne w h ether the o str i ch i nstr ucti on c or re c tly st at ed th e a p p lica b le law

. Se eU nited State s v. C urry, 53 8 F

. 3d 718, 73 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. I t i s co nsi deredN o. 08

- 3216 17

w i thi n t h e c on text ofal l o fthe i nstr ucti ons as a whole to d et erm i ne i ftheyadequatel y a nd co rr ectly info rm ed th e jur y of t h e a p p lica b le law

. Id. The “ o st r i ch ” i ns truct i o n “ ex pl ain[ s] t o the j ur y tha t th e l ega l defi ni ti on o f‘ knowle dge’ i ncl ud es the delib erate avo i dance ofkn ow l edge. ” U nite d State s v. C arri ll o , 26 9 F.3 d 76 1, 76 9 (7 th C ir. 2 00 1); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Sev ers on , N o. 08-1508, 2009 W L 17515 45, at * 5 (7th C ir. J une 23, 20 09) ( sta ting t hat the o str i ch i nstr ucti on “expl ai n s to the j ury that gui l ty knowle dge al so i ncl ud es th e d elib er at e a vo id an c e o f kn ow led ge ”); B lack, 53 0 F

. 3d a t 6 0 4 ( “ An o s t r i c h i ns t r uc t i o n t e l l s the j ur y t hat t o suspect that you ar e co m m i tting a cri m e an d t hen tak e st eps t o a vo id co nfi r m i ngthe s us pi ci o n i s th e equi va l en t of in te n d in g to c om m it th e crim e.” ). T h is in st ru c tio n is appropri ate wh en the d efe n d an t cl ai m s a l ack ofgui l ty knowle dge, and the g ove rnm ent has pre sente d evi dence su ffici en t for a j ury to infer that the d efend an t d elibera t e ly a vo id ed th e t ru th

. Se ve rs on , 20 09 W L 17515 45, at* 5; Cara ni, 492 F.3d at87 3. T h e f o c u s of th e in st ru c tio n is on th e d efe n d an t, n ota re as on ab le p er so n . U nited S ta tes v. C arri ll o , 435 F.3d 767, 782 (7th C ir. 2006). E v i d e n c e o f d elib er at e a vo id an c e c an be p lac ed in tw o gener alcat ego ri es. The fi rs t i s phys i calavo i dance, w h ich is w h er e t h e d efe n d an t p h ys ica lly ac ts to av oid c on f i r m i n g h er su sp icio n s. B lack, 530 F.3d at60 4; C arri ll o , 435 F.3d at 780. S ticking one ’s head u n d e r th e hood of a ve h icle d u rin g a d ru g d ea l is an ex am p le. See U nited Sta tes v. D i az , 8 64 F

. 2d 54 4, 5 51 ( 7th Ci r. 1 988)

. The s ec o nd c a t e g o r y o fde l ib e r a t e a v o i da nc e i s p syc ho l o g i c a la v o i dance, w hi ch is “a m entalact

— ’ a cutt i ng o ffo fo ne’ s no rm al18 N o. 08

- 3216 curi osi ty by an eff ort ofwil l

. ’ ” C arri ll o , 43 5 F

. 3d at 780 ( quoti ng U nit ed S ta te s v. G iovannetti, 91 9 F

. 3d 1223 , 12 29 ( 7 th C i r . 1 9 9 0 ) )

. A n e xa mpl e c o me s fr o m U nited Sta tes v. Le ahy, 464 F.3d 77 3 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ), cert. denied , 12 8 S

. Ct. 46 ( 2007 ) , wh er e the defendant i nsurance br oke r w as ex po se d t o numer o us a nd o bv i o us r ed fl ag s th r o ug ho ut a business re l ati onshi p, was aware o fpro bl em s with an audit, yet ask ed no questi ons and, w hen co n fronted w i th an al leg at ion ofi nsurance fra ud , di d not di sag re e. Id. at79 4- 96. Ps yc h olo gi calavo i dance, wh i ch supports an o st r i chi ns truct i o n, i s to b e dist i ng ui sh ed fr o m a de fen dant’s si m ple l ack ofm entaleffor t, l ack ofcuri osi ty, o r or d in ar y ign or an c e, w h i c hd oe s n ot
. B lack, 53 0 F

. 3d at 60 4; C arri ll o , 4 3 5 F. 3d at 780. “Th e circum stan ces su rro und i ng the defendant m ay be s ufficient t o i nfe r that, gi ven what t he defendant knew, [ s] he m ust hav e for ced [ he r ] s us pi ci o ns a si d e and de l ibe r at ely a vo i ded co nfi rm i ng f or[ hers el f ] that[ s] he was enga ged i n cr i m i nal acti vi ty. ” Cara ni, 49 2 F

. 3d at 873 ( ci ti ng C arri ll o , 43 5 F. 3d at 7 8 1 )

. T h e f o c u s i s o n wh a t th e d e fe n d a n t k ne w and w hetherthatkno w l edge r ai ses a re aso nabl e infe re nce that she rem ai ned del iber ate l y i gnor ant offact s co nsti tutin g c rim in al k n ow led ge . C a rrillo , 435 F.3d at78 1. T h is case pri nci pal l y i m pli cate s the psycho l ogi cal bra nch of knowle dge av oi dance. The ost ri ch i nstr ucti on m u st be g i ven ca uti ousl y s o as n ot to al l ow a j ury to convi ct a defendant f orm er e ne gligence , effecti vel y e l i m i nati ng the kno w l edge r equi re m en t. Id. T h i s c on c er n m ay be ad d re ss ed by ca re fu lly con sid er i ng wh etherthe evi dence supports an infe re nce of d elib er at e a vo id an c e. Se ei d. at78 2-8 4.N o. 08

- 3216 19 T h e g ov er n m en t p oin ts to th e f o l l ow in g e vid en c e in su p p or t o f th e o st ric h ins tr u c tio n : 

### ! Ram i re z kn ew thatvi rtual l y a l l herbusi ness cam e from U ribe, not from form er cu stom ers or refe rra ls; 

### ! sh e kne w tha tthe p e r s o ns r e fe r r e d b y Ur i be co ul d no t qua l i fy f o r m o r tg ag es , yet s o ug ht 10 0% fi na nc i ngo n the pur ch as e price o fthe hom es they w anted to buy; 

### ! fro m A pri l thro ugh m i d-J uly 2005 , Ram i re z ass i ste d s even bad-c re ditcl i ents re fer re d by U rib e in find in g h om es ; 

### ! she fi l l ed out the p u rc hase contr acts and then U rib e c rosse d out o r w hi ted o ut the buyer s’ n am es ; 

### ! Uribe t old Ra m i r ez tha t th e ch an g es i n the co nt r ac ts ups etthe ti tl e co m pan y, s o s he st ar te d se n d in g h im bla n k c on tr ac t fo rm s; 

### ! i n the seve n tr ansact i ons Ram i re z r ecei ved fi nal i zed co nt ra c ts that l i ste d the buye r as so m eo ne o th ertha n th e per so n( s) t o who m s he had show n the house and w ho s he kne w w ou ld live in t h e h ou se ; 

### ! Ram i re z knew thatLuis Gonzal ez appeared as the purpor ted buyer i n thr ee pu rchas e t ra nsactio n s d u rin g a six -w ee k p er iod fr om m id -A p ril th ro u gh M ay 20 05 ; 

### ! she was aware that the pr oper ti es w oul d not be oc c u p ied by so m eo n e n am ed L u is G on za lez ;20 N o. 08

- 3216


### ! she had neve r m et anyo ne nam ed Lu i s Gonzal ez and did n ot k now wh etherhe was a re al p er so n ; 

### ! R am ire z a tt en d ed th re e c l o sin gs w h er e L u is G onzal ez was na m ed th e buy ero n the c o ntr ac ts ; 

### ! atth o s e c l o s i n g s s h e wi tn e s s e d R a f a e l C r uz si gn the co ntra cts i n Gonzal ez’ s nam e; 

### ! Ram i re z previ ousl y had s ol d Cruz a pro perty, so sh e k n ew h is n am e w as n otG on za lez ; 

### ! she knew Cruz w oul d not l i ve i n thos e ho m es; 

### ! Ram i re z a dm i tte d that by the thi rd tr ansact i on she knew thatCruz was pre tendi ng to be so m eo n e h e w as n ot ; 

### ! n onethel ess , she continued to as soc i ate with an d pa r ti ci pat e i n re ale st at e tr an sa ct i o ns in vo lvin g U rib e a n d C ru z; 

### ! Ram i re z a ske d U ribe how he was ab l e t o getso m an y m o r tgage ap p li cation s us ing one p erson’ s i denti ty, and he expla i ned that as l ong as they cl ose d the loan s w i thi n thi rty o r si xty d ay s, th e c re d it re p or tin g c om p an ies w ou ld n otp ick it u p ; 

### ! Ram i re z knew that M ar i a M or eno appeared as th e p u rp or t e d bu ye r of t w o p ro p er tie s in pu rchas e t ra nsacti ons dated three w eek s ap ar t in Ju n e a n d Ju ly 2 00 5;N o. 08

- 3216 21


### ! Ram i re z knew thatM ar i a M or eno w oul d not occup y these proper ti es and she had neve r m et an yo n e n am ed M ar ia M or en o; 

### ! R am ire z a tt en d ed on e c los in g for w h ich M ar ia M or eno w as the pu rpor ted buyer an d was prese nt wh en Cruz’ s wife J uana A ngel i to sig n ed th e c on tr ac t a s M or en o; 

### ! Ra m i r ez kne w A ng el i to a nd kne w tha t sh e woul d no t ta k e po ss es si o n ofthe pr o per ty ; a nd 

### ! Ram i re z’ s co m m i ssi ons quick l y s kyr ock ete d an d s he outpaced al l of the othe r age nts in her offi ce b ase d al m ostexcl usi vel y o n tr ansac ti o ns i nv o l vingc l i en ts wi thb ad cr edi t who c ou ld n otqu alify for m or tg ag es . A ll o fthe se c i r cumst an ce s su g g es t th atRa m i r ez c o nsci ousl y turned a blin d eye t o the t rue nature o fthes e tr ansact i ons. Ye t th er e i s ev enmor e evid ence t o s uppo r t th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n to giv e t h e o st ric h ins tr u c tio n : 

### ! i n l ate 20 04, Ram i re z s how ed p ro perti es to Cr uz a nd hi s wi fe, Ange l i to ; whenthe y f o und a h om e a t 2 86 C h ap ar ra l, sh e a sk ed h im whos e na m e the p rope r tywoul d b e i n; a nd he sa id th at it w ou ld n ot be in his or his w ife’s na me a n d s h e s h o u l d c o n t a c tUr ib e wh o w ou ld h av e t h at info rm at ion ; 

### ! Uribe t o l d Ra m ire z th athe a ppl i ed f o r the m or tga ge f or 286 Ch aparr al usi ng the i denti ty22 N o. 08

- 3216 ofJ or ge Ito ra lde, and Cruz co m pla i ned to her about how m uch he had to pay I tor al de to use hi s i denti ty; 

### ! R am irez had received training on t h e i m p orta nc e o fa cc ur ac y i n dr awi ng up sa l es c o ntr ac ts ; 

### ! she w as aw ar e that herbo ss M ar y Rob er ts, who h a d g r e a t e r e xp e r i e nc e a nd t r a i ning, questi one d the t r a ns a c t i o ns w i th U ribe be ca us e th eyi nv o l ve d the s ame lende r a nd sa m e a tt or n ey ; 

### ! Ra m i r ez c l ai m ed att r i al th ats he b el i ev ed th e perso ns wh o si gned as the b u yers w er e “ cosig n er s,” ye t n on e o f th e se ve n c on tr ac ts id en tifi es a “ co - si g ne r ” an d no ne c o ntains the na m e of he r buy er; 

### ! sh e t es tifie d be for e th e gra n d j u ry th at sh e t old U ribe that Gonzal ez w as buyi ng proper ti es so f as t, s he was e m ba r r as se d t o s ho w the c o ntr ac ts aro u n d h er offic e; 

### ! sh e al so t es ti fi ed be f o r e th e g r an d j ur y tha t th e w om an w ho l i ved w i th Cruz showed u p at c l o s i ng s p r e t e nd i ngt o b e s o meo ne e l s e ; a nd 

### ! Ram i re z’ s pra cti ces i n fi l l i ng o ut purchase c on tr acts f ortr ansact i ons i nvol vi ng Uribe dive rg ed fro m the ty pica l pro cess descr ibed by Ro be r ts : Ty pi ca l l y, th e ag en t co m pl et es the pu rchas e co ntra ct with the buyer, pro vi des i t t o the s el l ero r sel l er ’s agent and, onl y a fterN o. 08

- 3216 23
the s e l l e r h a s a pp r o v e d the c o nt r a c t, f o r wa r ds i t t o the l ender. Ram i re z, by contr ast, pro vi ded par ti al l y c o m pl et ed o r b l an kpur ch as e co ntr ac ts t o Uribe who c ha ng ed o r fi l l ed i n the buy er i nf o r m at i o n a nd the n r etur ne d the f or m s t o Ram i re z, apparent l y b ef or e s he pro

vi ded the f or m s t o the s el l er ’ s a gent. I n deci ding w hetherthe evi dence supports the ost ri ch i nstr ucti on, we shoul d consi der a l l o fthes e ci rcum sta nces tog etherbec ause each o fthem was known to Ram i re z. See U nited Sta tes v. C o nn er, 537 F .3 d 4 8 0, 487 (5th Cir. 2008 ) ( “A l one, ea ch m i ght no t hav e j usti fi ed a del iber ate i gnor ance instr ucti on, but w hen tak en to geth erthey p resen t facts th at j us tify the i ns tru ction.”). Ram i re z ar gues that the gov ernm ent pr ese nted evi dence that she had di re ct know l edge o f t h e schem e t o defr aud, but nota si ngl e pi ece ofev i dence o f del iber ate av oid an c e. H ow ev er , evid en c e n ee d n ot“b e p lac ed in e i the r a n a c t ua l k no wl e dg e c a t e g o r y o r a de l ib e r a t e a v o i dance c ate gory. ” C arri ll o , 43 5 F

. 3d at 78 4. Th e go ve r nm ent m ay p re sent evi dence thatsupports bo th the or i es. Id. M uch ofthe evi dence descr ib ed abo ve supp or ts both th eo r i es . Ta k e, f o r e xa m pl e, Ra m i r ez ’ s o wn te st i m o ny that she s aw Cruz in the ro om a t th e s eco nd Gonzal ez cl osing and after w ar ds he ca l l ed her, sa yi ng w or d s to the e ffect of“I ’ m Cruz, o r Lu i s Gonzal ez, o r w hoeve r I ’ m supposed to be. ” Thi s co u ld s u p p or t a fi nd i ng tha t at th at p oin t in tim e R am ire z k n ow in gly p ar t icip at ed in the frau d . It a l so coul d supp or t a n i nfe re nce o fdel iber ate av o i dan ce : I fRa m i r ez was una war e o fthe fr au dul en t24 N o. 08

- 3216 schem e a t that t i m e, Cruz’s p resence at a cl osing tha t he se em i ngl y had no re aso n to a tt en d shoul d have ra i sed hersus p icions. But she didn’tquesti on hi s pre sence. Ram i re z’ s t est i m ony about the thi rd Gonzal ez tr ansact ion pr ese nts a notheri l l ustr ati on o fthe du al nature o fthe i nfo rm ati on s he pos se ss ed. S he adm i tte d th at as o f th at po i nt, sh e k ne w Cruz was posing as and si g ningf o r Go nz a l e z . T hi s c o ul d s up po r ta fi nd i ngthat Ram i re z knew she w as parti ci pati ng i n t h e s chem e t o defr aud. I t a l so c ou l d supp or t a r eas onabl e infe re nce that Ram i re z del iber ate l y a voi ded di sco ver i ng wh ether th e p e r s o n wh o s i g n e d f o r Ma r i a M o r en o a tth e t wo subsequent M oreno cl osings was i n f act M ar i a M or eno. “A p er so n ’ s know l edge o fhi s o r her cohor ts’ i nvol veme n twi th i l l e g a l o r s u s p i c i o u s a c t i v i t i e s i s a f a c twe have consistentl y found si gni fi cant in gi vi ng an ost ri ch i nstr ucti on. ” C arri ll o , 43 5 F

. 3d at 783. S i m i l arc i r cumst an ce s wer e pr es en te d i n U nit e d S ta tes v. Ng uy en , 493 F.3d 613 ( 5th Cir. 2007), w he re the cou rt he l d tha t th e o st r i chi ns truct i o n w as war r an te d. The defen dan ts, th e N g uy enb r o th er s, wer e i nv o l ve d i n a m or tga ge schem e that use d i nfl ate d ap prai sal s, f al se d o c u me n t a t i o n, a n d “ s t r a w b o r r o we r s ” t o o b t a i n h o me fi na nc i ngl o an s. The Nguye ns wor k ed ata t i tl e co m pan y and acted a s the not ar y, es cro w , and cl osing ag ents f o r s ev er alr ea l e st at e tr an sa ct i o ns whi ch w er e par t o fthe schem e. They c om ple ted and subm i tte d fo rm s t o l oan com panie s reg ar ding bogus sa l es; theynot ar i zed st ra w b o r r o we r s ’ f a l s e a ffi da v i t s s t a t i ngthe i r i nt e ntt o o c c up y the ho m es; and theyput cas hi er ’ s che ck num ber s o nN o. 08

- 3216 25 f or m s s how i ng a dow n paym ent was r ec eiv ed , tho ugh th eyne ve r s aw the a ctua l c he cko r i nqui r ed about the c h ec k. Id. at617. The N guyens re peated these pract i ces man y t i mes wi thin a s ho r tt i me fr a me, a nd the y o f ten used the sam e s tr aw bo rro w er s. Id. at 618. The cou rt concl ud ed that the g ove rnm ent had pre sente d evi d ence suffi ci ent t o ra i se an i nfe re nce o fsubj ecti ve knowle dge. Id. at62 0. T h e c ou rtsa id th at p ar tic ip a t i o n in a sin gle su sp ici ou s tran sact ion m ight be insu ffici en t to sup p ort th e o st ric h ins tr u c tio n, i d. at62 0, but ex p lained that “[ t] he s h ee r i ntensi ty and repet i ti on in the pattern of su spi ci o us a ct i vi tyc o upl ed wi ththe [ defen dan ts ’ ] c o ns i s t e ntf a i l ur e t o c o nd uc tfur the r i nqui r y ” di d, i d. at62 2. A n d so itw as w ith R am ire z, w h o fa c ed a sim ilar ly i nt en se a nd r epe titi ous pa tt ern o fhi g hl y s us pi ci o us acti vi ty. S he kne w thatthe cl i ents U ribe referr ed to her coul d not qual ify f orm or tga ges ye t s ought 100% fi nanci ng o n the pu rchas e pr i ce o f t h e h om es they w anted to buy. S he pro vi ded U ribe with i ncom ple te or bl a n kp u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t s . E v e r y fi n a l i z e d c o n t r a c ts he re cei ved fro m U ribe l i ste d as the buye r som eone o ther than the per son w i th wh om she had w or ked. H erbuyer s’ na m es wer e no wher e to b e f o und o n the pur ch as e co nt r ac ts
. F ur th er m ore, Lui s Gon za l ez was the pu r po r t e d b uy e r f o r thr e e p ur c ha s e s i n a s i x- we e kp e r i o d, an d M a r i a Mo r e n o wa s th e p u r p o r t e d b u y e r i n t wo pu rchas es i n l ess than thre e weeks

. C ru z even tol d her tha t he w as t a k i ngo n the Go nz a l e z p e r s o na, a s n e e de d. R am i r ez kne w tha t th e per so ns who woul d o cc upy the hom es w er e no t o n the contr acts
.26 N o. 08

- 3216 And the r e i s ev enmor e: vie wi ngthe e vi den ce i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o the g ove rnm ent, as we m ust, Ram i re z a tte nd ed thr ee cl osings where she witnesse d Raf aelCruz, wh om she knew w as not Gonzal ez, si gn th e con tracts as Lu is G onz alez, th e pu rp orted bu yer. Eve n a cc ept i ngRa m i r ez ’ s v ersi o n o fthe f ac ts , s he att ended tw o cl osin gs wh er e s he sa w Cruz e ven though he had no legi ti m ate r eas on t o be there

. S he kne w that Cr uz was no t th e per so n to whom s he had show n the houses and that he w ou ld n ot l i ve i n the houses. Ram i re z eve n adm i tte d that s he at tended the thi rd Gonzal ez cl o singa t whi cht i m e sh e unde r st o o d Cr uz w as cl ai m i ng to be Gonzal ez! Yet she was qui ck to say thatshe never saw C ru z sign anythi ng, wh i ch by i tse l fco uld r easo n abl y be und er sto od as an eff or t to hi de her he ad in the s a nd

. T he e v i de nc e thu s r e v e a l s “ a p a r a di g m ca se” f or g iving an o str i ch i nstr ucti on: Ram i re z a cknowle dges her ass oci ation with Uribe a nd hi s co hor ts, “but, despi te c irc u m st an tia l ev id en c e t o th e c on tr ar y, d en ies kn ow ledge o fthe gr oup’s i l l ega l act i vi ty. ” U nite d S ta te s v. P aiz , 90 5 F.2d 10 14 , 10 22 (7t h C ir . 1 99 0), a bro ga ted o n o ther gro un ds by G o z lo n-P eretz v . U nited Sta tes , 498 U .S. 3 95 (19 91 ); D i az , 86 4 F

. 2d at 550. Ye t Ra m i r ez f ai l ed to a skque sti o ns

— o th ertha n the o ne to Uribe abo utho w he was abl e to us e a na m e so many ti m es

— orta ke any o theract i on. U ribe’ s r esp onse to he r tha t cr edi t r epo r tingc o m pan ies w o ul dn’ t pi cki t up i ftheyact ed quick l y enough i tse l fsho uld have p ro m p te d fu rt h er qu es ti o n s . B u t e ve n if th at by its elf didn’t h ei ghten Ram i re z’ s s uspici ons, wh en co nsi dered tog ether w i th the o therev ents as they unfo l ded

— Ram i re z questi oned U ribe about thi s be f ore a ny o fthe Gonzal ezN o. 08

- 3216 27

c l o s i ng s

— such a re sponse w oul d have m ade her str ongl y s uspici ous that thi ngs were notas they se em ed to b e. And the f act th atRa m i r ez a cc ept ed Uribe ’ s ex pl an at i o n tha t ev ery th i ngwas fi ne , wi th ou t que st i o n, fu rt h er su p p or ts an infe re n c e t h at sh e d elib er at el y h id h er h ea d in t h e s an d to av oid lea r n i n g t h e t ru th

. See U nite d State s v. Newell, 315 F.3d 510 , 5 2 8-29 (5th C ir. 2002 ) (holdin g ostrich ins tru ction app rop riate w he re pr i nc i pa l i n a dv e r t i s i nga g e nc y a c cepted c l i e nt ’ s r e pr es en ta ti o ns tha t ch ar g es wer e f o r l eg it i m at e m ar k et i ng ex pen se s wi th o uta ny pr o o ftha t m ar k et i ng - r el ated expenses w er e incurr ed, hesi tat ed i n see ki ng l ega l advi ce, and persi ste d i n questi onabl e pr acti ces eve n aftera cow orker had qu estione d her abou t the m ). W e a cknowle dge thatdi stingui shi n g between del iber ate avo i dance and si m ple l ack ofm en ta l eff or t, l ack of cu riosity, o rdi naryi gnor ance, o r m er e neg l i gence o ften i nvol ves “cl os e c alls. ” See U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cCl e l l an , 16 5 F. 3d 535, 54 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99 ). B u t i n case s s uch as thi s, w e s houl d deferto the dist ri ct c ou rt ’s ex er ci se ofdi scr etio n to giv e t h e o st ric h ins tr u c tio n . Id. A nd thi s i s s o eve n inca se s in w h ich t h e r e i s e vid en c e o f d ire c t, or a c tu al, kn ow led ge . S ee C arri ll o , 4 35 F

. 3d at7 83

- 84 ( fi ndi ngno abu se of discretion in givi ng os t r ich instru ction w he re s o me e v i d e n c e e s t ab l i s h e d d i r e c tkn o wl e d g e a n d s o me evid en ce raised a n inferen ce of deliberate ignoran ce). A ccor dingl y, we concl u d e the di str i ct c ourtdi d not abu s e i t s di s c r e t i o n b y g i v i ng the o s t r i c h i ns t r uc t i on t o the j ury.28 N o. 08

- 3216 B. Ref using t o I nclude N egl i gence La nguage Ram i re z a rgues that the di str i ct c ourtco m p ou n d ed i ts er ro r i n gi vin g the o str i ch i nstr ucti on byf ai l i ng to i ns tructthe j ur y tha t m ere ne g l i g en ce i n di sc o ve r i ngthe tr uth w as not suffi ci ent t o i nfe r knowle d ge . A long thos e l i nes, she conte nd s that the go ver nm ent s ugges ted that the j ury coul d find del iber at e avo i dance beca use a r easonab l e per son i n herposi ti on w ou ld h ave i nquir ed fur th era nd di sc o ve r ed th e truth. W e hav e ca ut ion ed that “a j ury m ust no t be i nvi ted to i nfe r that a p ar ti cul ardefendant del iber ate l y a voi ded knowle dge o n the basi s o fev i dence thato nl y s up port s the infe re nce that a r eas onabl e per son i n the si tuati on w oul d have del iber ate l y a voi ded kno w l edge. ” C arri ll o , 43 5 F

. 3d at7 82

. In ar g ui ngtha t th e g o ve r nm en t i nv i te d the j ur y t o do tha t he r e, Ra m i r ez fi r stpoint s t o a s i ng l e se nten ce in the govern m en t’s closi ng argum en t: “R em em ber, th er e ar e so many r ed fl ag s i n e ac h o fthe se t r an sa ct i o ns th at th ere’s a h ig h risk that an h one st real estate broker, o ne who i sn ’ t i nt en t o n defr au di ng, wi l l ca tc h o nt o the scam , wil l turn U ribe in. ” W e a re notper suaded that thi s s entence has the e ffect that Ram i re z a tt rib u tes to i t. The r e i s l i tt l e r i sktha t th i s sing l e l i ne fr o m the g o vern m ent’ s cl osing ar gum ent l ed the j ury to fi nd thatRam i re z d elib er at e l y a vo id ed kn ow led ge be c au se a re as on ab le br o k erwoul d ha ve i nqui r ed fur th era nd di sc o ve r ed th e fr au d. The c o nt ex t ofthi s se nt en ce s ee m s to di spe l a ny n o t i o n o f j u r o r c o n fu s i o n . T h e g o v e r n me n t was e xpl aini ngwhy Uribe ne ede d t o e nl i sta r ea l e st at e ag en t who wa s i n o n th e fr a u d u l e n ts c h e me

— s o me o n e he coul d trustwould not turn hi m i n to autho ri ti es.N o. 08

- 3216 29 Furtherm or e, the gov er n m en t repeat edl y s tat ed i n i ts c l o s i nga r g ume nttha ti th a d t o p r o v e tha tR a mi r e z act ed kn ow ingly or w ith know ledge

. T h e A ssistan t U

. S. Att o r ne y a cc ur at ely quo te d the j ury i ns truct i o n o n the e l e m e n t s o f w i r e fr a u d th a t th e j u r y w a s t o r e c e i v e i mm edi at ely f o l l o wi ngthe a r g um en ts , i nc l udi ng“ th atthe defe n d an t kno w inglyde vi se d o r pa r ti ci pat ed i n the sc he m e to defr au d, a s des cr ibe d i n the i ndi ct m en t” a nd “did s o kno w inglya nd with thei nt ent to de f r aud

. ” S he ad d ed th at “t h is c as e b oils d ow n to a s i n g l e is su e: D id Beatr i z Ram i re z kno w inglypart i ci pate in a s chem e t o f ra ud ule ntl y o btain m or tg ag es ? ” T h e pr ose cutor r ei te r a t e d th a t“ th e g o v e r n me n tmu s tp r o v e th a tt he defe nd ant knowingly part i ci pated .

. . i n a s chem e t o d efr au d .” M or eo ve r, gov er n m en t c ou n s e l ac c u ra te ly ex pl aine d tha t “kno wi ng ly” as us ed i n the i ns truct i o ns th e co ur t was t o g i ve t o the j ur y mean t “tha t th e d efend an t rea lized w ha t he or she w as d oing, w as aw are ofthe nature o fhi s o r her condu c t, [an d ] di d not a ct th rough ignoran ce, m ist a k e or a c c id e n t .” T h e go v e r nm en t’s c los in g a rg u m e n t d id n otsu gg es t t h at th e jur y c ou ld convi ct Ram i re z be cause ofherf ai l ure to d o w hat a re aso nabl e per so n in h ersi tuati on would have done. N or did t h e gove rnm ent’ s cl osing sug ges t that a gui l ty fi nd i ng co uld be bas ed on m er e neg l i gence . Ram i re z a l so ar gues th at the g ove rnm ent use d Rober ts’ te st im on y t o s u gg es t t h a t a rea so n ab le b ro ke r w ou ld have see n the re d fl ags i n the tr ansact i ons i nvol vi ng Uribe an d inq u ire d fu rt h er . Th e g ov er n m en t r e sp on d s t h at it poi nted to Robe rt s’ te sti m ony as evi dence thatRam i re z, wh o kn e w mu c h mo r e ab o u tth e s u s pi c i o u s c i r c u m-30 N o. 08

- 3216

I n h e r b r i e f Ra mi r e z a s s e r t s th a t Ro b e r t s o p i n e d t hats he 3 w as tru sting an d na iv e. Actu ally , R am irez’s attorn ey sa id d u ri n g a s idebar thatRo berts w ould tes ti fy that R am ir ez w as naiv e and trus ti ng. R oberts te st ifie d, how ever, that R am ir ez w a s tr u sti ng and car ing. W e al so not e that Ram ir ez di d notar gue a ne g li ge nc e the or y t o the j ur y; he r the or y of defe nse w as si m ply thats he l acked gu il ty know le dg e. sta nces than Robe rt s di d, actual l y knew o ft he fra ud , not that Ram i re z s houl d have know n a b ou t i t. W e hav e fou n d th at an os tr ich ins tr u c tio n w as ap p ro p ria te ly gi ven under si m i l arci rcum sta nces. See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Leah y, 4 6 4 F

. 3 d 7 7 3 , 7 9 6

- 9 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c o n t r as ti ng defe nd ant’ s cl ai m ed i gnor ance des pit e y ear s o fi nvol vem ent with suspi ci ous work er s co m pensatio n i nsurance ac c ou n ts w ith th e re ac tio n of a c ow or ke r, w h o im m ed iate l y r eal i zed that the acco unts were base d on i nacc u ra te em p loy ee j ob cla ss ifica tio n s), ce r t . d enied , 12 8 S

. Ct. 46 ( 20 07 )

. Ro be r ts was s om ewha t al ar m ed afte r fi el di ng a few phone ca l l s forRam i re z whil e s he was on v acat i on an d br iefly rev iew in g h er files. T h ou gh R am ire z d id not h av e the s am e l eve l o fexper i ence as Rober ts, Ram i re z was deepl y invol ved w i th t h e s uspici ous fi l es and rel ate d tra nsacti ons. They were herti cketto succe ss. A s for th e d istri ct cou rt’s r e fu sal to ins tru ct th e j ury th at m er e n eg lige n c e in n otd isc ov er in g t h e t ru th co u ld not be e quated w i th kno w l edge, Ram i re z co ntends that su chl an g ua g e was s uppo r te d b y the ev i den ce tha t sh e was a r el at i ve l y ne w and i ne xpe r i en ce d rea l es ta te a g en t an d tha t sh e was t r us ting . A va r i at i o n pr o vide d b y the 3 Se venth Ci rcui t patt er n os tr i ch i nstr ucti on ind ica tes that “m er e neg l i gence ” l anguage sho uld be i ncl ud ed w henN o. 08

- 3216 31 appropri ate i n a g i ven ca se. Fe deralCri m i nal J ury I nstr ucti ons of the Se venth Cir cui t 4. 06 ( 1999 ) ( “You m ay n ot co nc l ude tha t th e defen dan t had kno wl edg e i fhe / sh e w as m erely negli gen t in not d iscovering th e truth

. ”). Th e di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o s t r i c h i ns t r uc t i o n di d n o ti nc l ud e such l anguage . I t seem s unl i k ely tha t th e j ur y c o ul d ha ve f o und Ra m i r ez g ui l tyb as ed o n mer e ne gli gen ce , g i ve n the i ns truct i o ns a s a whol e m ade it cle artha t th e g o ve r nm en t h ad to p ro ve th at sh e k n ow in gly p a r t i c ip at ed in th e f r a u d u len t s c h em e. SeeCa rr il lo , 2 69 F

. 3d at7 70 ( co ncl ud i ng i t unl i kel y that the j ury convi cted the defendants base d onl y o n negl i gence gi ven the i nstr ucti ons th at “[ a] d efendant’ s pre sence at the s cene ofa cri m e a nd kno w ledg e th ata c r i m e i s be i ngc o m m itted i s no t al o ne suffi ci ent t o est abl i sh the defendan t’s gui l t” and “[ a] d efe n d an t’s as s o c iat ion w ith co n sp ira to rs . . . is n otsu ffici en t to pr o ve hi s par ti ci pat i o n o r mem be r sh i p i n a c o nsp i r a c y” ); P aiz , 90 5 F

. 2d at 1022

- 23 ( concl ud i ng o str i ch i ns truc tio n’ s effec t was ne ut r al i ze d b y o th eri ns truct i o ns i nc l ud i ng a “ mer e p r e s e nc e ” i ns t r uc t i o n whi c h “ ne g a t e [ d] an y c ha nc e th at th e j ur y woul d co nv i ct
. . . o n a ny fi ndi ng oth er than ” know ing p articipation i n th e con sp iracy). And, we add th atwe di sa g r ee tha t th er e was a ny evi dence thatRam i re z was m er el y neg l i gent. She ei ther k ne w ors he a ct i ve l y a nd de l ibe r at ely a vo i ded l ea r ni ng the t ruth. M or eov er, the gov er n m en t did notar gue that R am irez w as gu il ty bec au se sh e w as ne gli gen t, or otherwi se f ai l ed to do whata r ea so nabl e r ea l e st at e ag en t w oul d have done.32 N o. 08

- 3216 An d o th e r i n s t r u c t i o n s c a n n o tb e d i s r e g a r d ed. As no te d, we co ns i derno t o nl y the o st r i chi ns tructi on b ut al l o fthe in st ru c tio ns as a w hol e t o deter m i ne i fthey a de qu a t e l y a nd c o r r e c t l y i nfo r med the j ur y o fthe a pp l i c ab le law

. Se e, e . g. , U nite d State s v. D iSantis , 5 6 5 F. 3d 35 4, 3 5 9 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ); U nited Sta tes v. C urry, 53 8 F

. 3d 718, 73 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08). T h e di str i ct c ourtga ve seve ra l othe r i nstr ucti ons re gar ding knowle dge and i ntent: A sche m e i s a pl an o r cour se ofact i on form ed w ith th e in te n t t o a c c om p lish so m e p u rp os e. . . . A sche m e t o defr aud i s a schem e that i s intended to decei ve orcheatano therand to o btain m oney orpro pertyo r cause the l oss o fm oneyor proper ty to ano th er. The phr as e “int en t to de fr au d” m ea ns tha t th e ac ts ch ar g ed wer e do ne k no wi ng l y, wi th the i ntent to decei ve or cheat the vi cti m i n or der t o ca us e g ain o fm one y o r pr o per tyt o the de fen dan t or loss of m on ey or p ro p er ty to an ot h er . The cour t furtheri nstr ucted that : A ny per son w ho know i ngl y a i ds, co unsel s, c o mma nd s , o r i n d u c e s o r p r o c u r e s th e c o mm i ssi on o fan o ffen se m ay be found gui l ty ofthat offense. A per son m ust know i ngl y a sso ci ate with the c r i mi na l a c t i v i t y, p a r t i c i pa t e i n the a c t i vi ty a nd t r y t o ma k e i ts uc c e e d. I f the defe nd ant know i ngl y c auses the acts o f anothe r, the defe nd ant i s r esponsibl e fortho se a c t s a s th o u g h s h e p e r s o n a l l y c o mmi t t e d th e m.N o. 08

- 3216 33

R am irez co nte nd s, w itho u t an y an aly sis or citation to p erti- 4 nent authori ty, t hat the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s giving ofthe ost ri ch instru ction d en i e d h er d u e p ro cess. Su ch an arg u m en t is co n sid er ed w a iv ed

. U n i te d States v . Tockes , 530 F. 3d 628, 633 (7 th C ir . 20 0 8 ). . . . I fa defe nd ant per f or m s a cts that ad va n ce a cri m i nal act i vi ty, but had no kno w l edge that a c r i me wa s b e i ng c o mm i t t e d o r wa s ab o ut to be com m i tte d, thos e a cts al one ar e no t s uffi ci ent t o est abl i sh the defendant’s gui l t. This lasti nstr ucti on i s a nal ogo us to the “m er e pr ese nce” i ns truct i o n di sc us se d i n C arri ll o , 2 6 9 F

. 3 d a t7 7 0 , a nd P aiz , 90 5 F

. 2d at 10 22

- 23

. The se i ns truct i o ns adv i se d th e j ury that i t had to fi nd thatRam i re z a cted know i ngl y in or der to be guil ty. W hen w e l oo k t o the instr u cti ons as a w h ole , w e c on c lu d e t h at th e jur y w as ap p ro p ria te ly i nstr ucted thati t cou ld n ot convi ct absent a fi nd i ng tha t R am irez acted “know in g ly.” Th e absen ce of the “m ere negl i gence ” va ri ati on of the ost ri ch i nstr ucti on does not see m to us t o have been an er ro r i n thi s ca se.

C. Harmle ss Err or A s a backup posi ti on, the gov er nm ent a l so ar gues that eve n i fthe ost ri ch i nstr ucti on was im p ro p erl y g i ven o r w or ded , the er ro r w as harm l ess gi ven the exte nsi ve evi dence ofRam i re z’ s di re ct know l edge, i ncl ud i ng her own r epeate d i ncri m i nati ng st ate m ents. W e a gr ee. 434 N o. 08

- 3216 Even i fthe dist ri ct c ourt e rr ed in gi vi ng the o str i ch i ns truct i o n o r i n de cl i ni ngt o i nc l ude l an g ua g e adv is i ng th e j ury th at m ere ne g li gen ce w as insu ffici en t for a gu ilty find in g, R am ire z’s co n v ict ion sh ou ld be u p h eld if th e e rro r w as h ar m les s. SeePo pe v. Ill inois , 4 8 1 U. S. 49 7, 501- 03 (1 98 7); B lack, 53 0 F

. 3d at 602. A n er ro r i s har m l ess “i fthe evi dence i s so str ong that a j ury w oul d have re ached the sam e v er dictabs ent the er ro neous i nstr ucti on . . . . ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ram sey , 4 06 F. 3d 426, 43 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5)

. Th e e asi es t ca se f o r ha r m l es s er r o r i n g i ving a n o s t r i c h i n s t r u c t i o n i s wh e r e th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s o wn t e s t i mo n y e s t ab l i s h e s h i s o r h e r kn o wl e d g e o fth e c r i min al a c tiv ity

. See U nited Sta tes v. No bles , 69 F. 3d 172, 18 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ( re aso ni ng tha t the o str i ch i nstr ucti on was u nl i k ely t o a ffec t th e j ur y ’ s co ns i der at i o n o fthe defen dan t’ s o wn wor ds in di ca tingkno wl edg e o fdr ug p ossess ion); Uni t e d S t at e s v . Jos ef ik, 753 F. 2d 585, 58 9 ( 7th C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ( c o n c l u d i n gth e o s t r i c h i n s t r u c t i o n w a s “ c o mple tel y har m l ess as to [o ne defendant], f orther e was dir ect evi dence thathe hi m sel fdescr ibed the sco tch as stolen” ). H er e, we have Ram i re z’ s o w n tes ti m ony at tr i alwh i ch su ppo r ts a fin di ngtha t sh e k ne w, a t th e ve r y l ea st, b y the thi rd G on za l ez cl osing tha t Cruz w as showing up at cl osing s f o r wh i c h he wa s n o tthe b uy e r, o r, f o r tha t m att er, the sel l er, was usi ng a f al se nam e a nd f al se id en tit y, an d w as p os in g a s s om eo n e h e w as n ot . Th is is o bv i o us l y f al se , de ce pti ve , a nd i l l eg al

. De spi te kno wi ng th atCr uz a nd Ur ibe wer e i nv o l ve d i n the se fr au dul en t acti vi ti es, Ram i re z’ s a sso ciat ion with and parti ci pati onN o. 08

- 3216 35 i n the schem e co nti nued

. Ram i re z’ s k now l edge that Ur ib e , Cr uz , a nd o the r s we r e i nv o l v e d i n f r a ud

ul en t l o ant ra ns ac ti o ns , a l o ngwi thhe r kno wl edg e o fthe num er ous s uspici ous c i rcum sta n c es that surr ounded th os e a n d oth er tra n sa c tio n s g av e h er su fficie n t k n ow led ge t o perm it a j ury to infer that she rem ained de liberate l y i gnor ant o ff acts co nsti tuti ng cr i m i nal kno w l edge. I n ar gui ng that the er ro rs i n the gi vi ng of the ost ri ch i ns truct i o n w ere notha r m l es s, Ra m i r ez r el i es o n the f act that U ribe di d not m enti on heri n hi s s w or n sta tem ent pr epare d by th e go ver nm ent, r evi ew ed by U ribe an d hi s at to r ne y, a nd pr es en te d unde r o ath t o the g r an d j ury re gar ding the s chem e. U ribe t est i fi ed, h ow ev er, that he ha d to ld th e g o ve r nm en t ab o utRa m i r ez b efo r e he tes ti fi ed to the gr and j ury. H e a l so tes ti fi ed that hi s s tat em ent to the g ra nd j ury did notco ntai n eve rydetai l that he kne w abo ut the fra ud

. Ram i re z re sp on ds that she was “har dlya m er e deta i l

. ” W hi l e thi s s eem s t o be a n accur ate ch ar ac te r iza ti o n o fhe r r o l e, Uribe ’ s o m i ss i o n o fa ny m en tion of R am irez in h is statem e n t t o t he grand j ury c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d i n i s o l a t i o n . We c o n s i d e r a l l o ft he evid en ce, and w e find plen t y o f evid en ce of Ram irez’s ac tu alkn o wl e d g e , i n c l u d i n gh e r o wnt e s t i mo n y o n the sta nd that, ev en i fshe w as i n the dark i n the beginning, by th e th i r d G onz al ez c l o sing, a t th e l at es t, s he kne w ofthe cri m in al acti vi ty. W e m i ght a dd thatthe thi rd Gonzal ez cl osing, wh i ch Ram i re z t esti fi ed occur re d i n J une 200 5, occu rred prior to th e A ug us t 31, 2005 w ire tran sfer, w hi ch se rv ed as the b asi s forCount 3

— the c ount o n whi c h Ra mi r e z wa s c o nv i c t e d.36 N o. 08

- 3216 R am ire z a lso foc u se s o n U rib e’s te st im on y t h at “it w as m y und er sta nd i ng, or m y thought, that M s. R am i re z m ay have

— ordi d know about the sc hem e.” S he ar gues th at, g i ve n the g o ve r nm en t’ s vi ew tha t Uribe was the “h ea d o fthe s ch eme” a nd s he was o nl y a he l per, Uribe’s te st i m o ny s ho ws a “ sh o ck i ngl ac ko fc er ti tu de. ” But Ram ire z o ver l oo ks U ribe’ s t est i m ony i n re sponse to the ne xt two questi ons f ol l owing thi s t est i m ony: Q: Di d y o u t el l the g o ve r nm en t whethe r the d efe nd ant knew o fany othe r co- schem er s o r pa r t i c i pa nt s i n thi s fr a ud ? A

. A t t h at tim e I be liev e I d id , yes , m a’a m . Q. A nd wh at did yo u say ? A

. Idi d at that t i m e m enti on the f act th at M s. R am i re z had kno w n and had m et M r. Raf ael Cruz , who eve ntual l y pos ed as Lu i s Gonzal ez f orso m e o fthes e pr oper ti es. I t s eem s that r atherth an bei ng unsure abo ut wh ether Ram i re z knew abo ut the schem e, U ribe’ s word choices re flec t d isc om for t in t es tify in g. A n d , in th e e n d , i t do e s n’ tr e a l l y ma t t e r g i v e n the p l e nt i fule v i de nc e tha t Ra m i r ez kne w ab o ut a nd kno wi ng l y pa r ti ci pat ed i n the fra ud ule nt sc hem e. Thi s was nota cl ose cas e.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o r the f o r e g o i ng r e a s o ns , we A FFIRM Ra m i r ez ’ s co nvi cti on a nd the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.

8- 3- 09