NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 09- 1723

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. RA H I EM BR O O K S, A ppel l ant

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 2- 05- cr - 00696- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e G ene E. K . Pr at t er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember17, 2010 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , B A R R Y and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( Fi l ed Sept ember20, 2010) OP I NI ONT he D i s t r i ctC our t had j ur i s di ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 3231 1 a n d w e h a v e a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . We appl ya “pa r t i cul ar l ydefe r ent i al ” s t a n d a r d of r evi ew w hen dec i di ng w h e th e r a ju ry v e rd ic t re s te d o n s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. R aw l i ns , 606 F. 3d 73, 80 ( 3d C i r . 2010) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal qu otat i on m arks om i t t ed). W e view t he evi den ce i n the li gh tm ost favor abl e t o t he G overnm entand w i l l s us t ai n t he v er di cti f “a ny r at i onal t r i er of fact coul d have found t he es s ent i al el ement s of the crim e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” Id . ( c i t a t i o n a n d i n t e r nal q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). 2 S L O V IT E R , C i r cui tJudge . A ppel l antR ahi em B r ooks w as convi ct ed bya j uryon s i x count s of ut t er i ng and pos s es s i ng count er fei ts ecur i t i es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 513( a) . B r ooks as s ert s that t here w as i nsuff

i ci ent evi den ce t o p rove t hat he w as guil t yof the cri m e charged . H e al so as s er t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j ur yi ns t ruct i ons w er e i m pr oper . W e w i l l aff i r m the j udgm entof convi ct i on. 1 I. B r ooks r eadi l yconce des t hathe us ed s i x fal s e che cks , eac h “made t o l ook and be acc ept ed l i ke a c heck w r i t t en on conve nt i onal PN C B ank per s onal chec ki ng acc ount s . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at2- 3. T he che cks i ncl uded B r ooks ’ authent i c name and addr es s , butt he acc ountand r out i ng num ber s w er e fr audul entand r epr es ent ed no ac tual acc ountthat exi s t ed atPN C B ank. H e pas s ed thes e s i x chec ks atPhi l adel phi a ar ea r et ai l s t or es and fr audul ent l ypur chas ed var i ous m er chandi s e, s om e of w hi ch B r ooks ther eaf t err eturned forcas h. Fort hi s conductt he j ur yconvi ct ed hi m of s i x count s of “[ u] t t er i ng and3

p o s s e s s in g c o u n te rf

e it s e c u ri tie s ” u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 3 (a ). S u p p . A p p . a t 1 . II. B r ooks ’ bas es forappea l ar e the fol l ow i ng: he cont ends thathe di d notvi ol at e § 513( a) beca us e, as he put s i t , “[t ] he G overnm entchar ged [hi m ] w i t h t he w r ong cr i m e. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at9. T hati s , he as s ert s thathi s conductw as notfor gerybeca us e he “s i gned al l s i x chec ks us i ng hi s ow n t rue name, ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at12, and thatthe check s w ere notcou nter fei tbecau se “a cou nter fei t i ng con vict i on i s not s ust ai nab l e j ust beca us e the evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o perm i tthe j uryt o fi nd that[B r ooks ] had ut t er ed and pos s es s ed . . . chec ks m ade f r om s cr at ch w i t hout. . . an ac count , ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 17. H e furt hercont ends t hat§ 513 does notcoverper s onal chec ks . Fi nal l y , B r ooks as s er t s t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our ti m pr oper l yi ns t ruct ed the j uryon t he el ement s of count s one t hr ough s i x of the i ndi ctm ent , and abus ed i t s di s cr et i on byi ns t ruct i ng the j urythatthey coul d fi nd B r ooks gui l t yi f he vi ol at ed the “f or gery ” and “ count er fei t ” el ement s of § 5 1 3 (a ). Sect i on 513( a) pr ovi des t hat“[w ] hoeverm akes , ut t er s orpos s es s es a count er fei t ed s e c u r i t y o f

. . . a n o r g a n i z a t i o n , o rw h o e v e rm a k e s , u t t e r s o rp o s s e s s e s a f o r g e d s e c u r i ty of . . . an or gani zat i on, w i t h i nt entt o dece i ve another. . . s hal l be fi ned . . . ori m pr i s oned

. . . . ” 1 8 U . S . C . § 5 1 3 (a). T h e statute d ef ines k eyterm s, p rov iding that “the term

‘ count er fei t ed’ m eans a documentt hatpurpor t s t o be genui ne buti s not , beca us e i thas been f al s el ym ade orm anufa ctur ed i n i t s ent i r ety , ” id . § 513( c) ( 1) ; “the t erm ‘ for ged’4

m e a n s a d o c u m e n t th a t p u rp o rts to b e g e n u in e b u t is n o t b e c a u se it h a s b e e n f a lse ly al t er ed, compl et ed, s i gned, orendor s ed, orcont ai ns a fa l s e addi t i on ther et o ori ns ert i on t her ei n, ori s a combi nat i on of part s of tw o orm or e genui ne document s , ” id . § 5 1 3 (c)(2). Itw as the G ov ernm ent’ s burden t o p roduce suffici ent evi den ce t hat B rooks’ chec ks w er e ei t herfor ger i es orcount er fei t s . B r ooks aver s that“ther e ca n be no doubt th a t th e c h e c k s w ritten b y. . . B ro o k s q u a lifya s g e n u in e ” b e c a u se “ [ t]h e in stru m e n ts

‘ purpor t [] t o be’ chec ks w r i t t en by. . . B r ooks as an ac counthol deratPN C B ank, and that is p re c ise lyw h a t th e yw e re .” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 1 2 . T h is a rg u m e n t is w ith o u t m e rit. T o t he contr ary , w e agr ee w i t h t he G overnm entthat“[e ] ach c heck . . . ‘ purpor t ed’ to b e b u t w a s n o t a g e n u in e P N C B a n k c h e c k d ra w n o n a n e x is tin g P N C B a n k a c c o u n t . . .

. ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at19. T he r emai ni ng el ementof the s t atut orydefi ni t i on of “count er fei t ” i s t hatt he che cks w er e “f al s el ym ade orm anufa ctur ed i n [thei r ] ent i r ety . ” 1 8 U .S .C . § 5 1 3 (c )(1 ). W e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t “th e c h e c k s w e re e n tirely fal s e. ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at19. T heyw er e manufactur ed fr om s cr at ch w i t h fal s e ac count and r out i ng num ber s , r epr es ent i ng t hatnon- exi s t entfunds w er e ava i l abl e i n a non- exi s t ent c h e c k in g a c c o u n t. A lth o u g h th e c h e c k s c o n ta in e d B ro o k s ’ r e a l n a m e a n d s ig n a tu re , a convi ct i on of ut t er i ng orpos s es s i ng count er fei tdocument s under§ 513( a) does not re q u ir e th e G o v e rn m e n t to p ro v e th a t e v e ry a s p e c t o f th e d o c u m e n t is f

a ls e . See U

ni t ed S ta tes v . D a v is , 888 F. 2d 283, 285 ( 3d C i r . 1989) . T he evi dence w as s uffi ci entt o convi ct B r ooks of “utt er [i ng] orpos s es s [i ng] a count er fei t ed s ecur i t y. . . of an or gani zat i on . . . . ”B roo k s ’ ar gum entt hat§ 513 “does notcoverper s onal 2 ch ec k s” is w ith o u t m erit . A p p ell an t’ s B r. at 18 (em p h asis o m itted). T h e s ta tu te c o u ld h a rd ly b e c le a re r. See 1 8 U. S . C. § 5 1 3 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( A) ( defi ni ng t he t erm “s ecur i t y ” as , among ot hert hi ngs , “a . . . chec k . . . .” ). 5 1 8 U . S . C . § 5 1 3 (a). 2 B r ooks nextcont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tpr ovi ded the j uryw i t h i m pr oper i ns t ruct i ons beca us e, al t hough t he G overnm entacknow l edged thati tw as notpur s ui ng t he argum ent that B rooks utt ered or possess ed fo rged ch ecks, the D i stri ctC ou rtnev ertheles s i n s t ru c t e d t h e j u r y: t he i ndi ctm enti n t hi s cas e al l eges thatthe che cks ati s s ue w er e for ged and count er fei t ed. I ti s notnece s s arythatthe G overnm entpr ove thatthe che cks w er e both for ged and c ount er fei t ed. I ns t ead, i ti s nece s s arythatthe e v id e n c e e s ta b lis h th a t th e c h e c k s w e re o n e o r t h e o th e r . . . . S u p p . A p p . at 2 3 9 . T h e D istric t C o u rt a d d e d th a t “[ u ]n d e r th e sta tu te M r. B ro o k s is char ged w i t h vi ol at i ng – t he t erm ‘ for ged’ m eans a documentthatpurpor t s t o be genui ne, buti s notbeca us e i thas been f al s el yal t er ed, compl et ed, s i gned orendor s ed. ” Supp. A pp. a t 2 4 1 . T he G overnm entconce des t hatB r ooks obj ect ed t o t hes e i ns t ruct i ons and s o our r evi ew i s forabus e of di s cr et i on and t o det erm i ne “‘ w hether , vi ew ed i n l i ghtof the evi dence , t he cha r ge as a w hol e fa i r l yand ade quat el ys ubm i t s the i s s ues i n t he ca s e t o the j ur y . ’ ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Zehr bach , 47 F. 3d 1252, 1264 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( quot i ng B ennis v. G a b le , 8 2 3 F . 2 d 7 2 3 , 7 2 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 7 )).6

B r ooks i s corr ecti nas m uch as “a j urys houl d notbe i ns t ruct ed on an i s s ue for w hi ch ther e i s s o l i t t l e evi dent i arys uppor tthatno r at i onal j urycoul d acc epti t . ” Tam m iv. P ors che Cars N

. A m . , I nc. , 536 F. 3d 702, 708 ( 7th C i r . 2008) ( al t er at i on, ci t at i on, and interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). E v en w ere the D istri ct C o u rt ’s i n stru cti o n o n a f o rge ry th e o ryo f liab ili tysu p e rf

lu o u s, w e f

in d n o a b u se o f

d isc re tio n a s th e c h a rg e a s a w h o le f a ir ly an d a d e q u a te ly su b m itte d th e is s u e s in th e c a s e to th e ju ry. See Zehr bach , 47 F. 3d at1264. I n G r i f f i n v. U ni t ed Stat es , t he Supr eme C our t , i n aff i r m i ng a j ury ’ s ver di ctof convi ct i on, s t at ed that i f the evi dence i s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor tan al t ernat i ve l egal theoryof l i abi l i t y , i tw oul d gener al l ybe pr efe r abl e forthe courtt o gi ve an i ns t ruct i on r emovi ng t hatt heoryfr om t he j ury ’ s cons i der at i on. T he r efus al t o do s o, ho w ever, do es not pr ov i de an i nd epen den tbasi s for r eversi ng an o t herw i se val i d convi ct i on. 5 0 2 U .S . 4 6 , 6 0 (1 9 9 1 ). W e a g re e w ith th e G o v e rn m e n t th a t “[ t]h is c a se f a lls sq u a re ly w i t hi n t he conf

i nes of G riffin . . . . ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at39. M or eover , w e ar e per s uaded thatthe j uryw as notm i s l ed orconfus ed bythe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s ar guabl ys uper fl uous i ns t ruct i ons beca us e the G overnm entneverar gued t hatt he che cks w er e for ged. I n i t s cl os i ng ar gum ent , aft erdi s cus s i ng ot herel ement s of t he cr i m e s uch as w hethert he r et ai l s t or es ’ oper at i ons aff ecti nt er s t at e comm er ce, the G overnm ents t at ed “ther e ar e r eal l yonl ytw o i s s ues l eft. . . . W er e thes e che cks c o u n te rf e it, a n d d id [ B ro o k s ] u s e th e m w ith th e in te n t to d e c e iv e ? ” S u p p . A p p . a t 2 1 1 .7

T he ver di ctform des cr i bed ea ch of the s i x count s as “Pos s es s i ng and U t t er i ng C o u n ter feit Secur i t i es . ” Supp. A pp. at26 ( emphasi s added) . T he ver di ctform di d noteven ment i on for gery . W e ca n as s um e thatt he j ur yconvi ct ed on the fa ctual l ys uffi ci enttheoryof lia b ility. S e e Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . S

y me , 2 7 6 F . 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 4 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T he onl yr emai ni ng i s s ue i s w hetherthe D i s t r i ctC our tcomm i t t ed pl ai n err orw hen i tdi d nots ubm i tt o t he j ur ya s peci al ver di ctform as ki ng i tt o unani m ous l yvot e on w hetherB r ooks “ut t er ed” or“pos s es s ed” the che cks ati s s ue. W e di s cern no err or , l et a lo n e a n e rr o r t h a t w a s o b v io u s a n d a f f e c te d B ro o k s ’ s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . See J ohns on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 0 U . S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 7 (19 9 7 ). III . F o r t h e s e re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f c o n v ic tio n .