T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptunderthe doctr i nes of * law o f th e c a se , res ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. Itm a yb e c ited , h o w e v e r, f o r its per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t entw i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1.

## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### A p r i l 9, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. GAL E N R E NE E BE AC H,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N os . 05- 3362, 06- 3053 ( D. Ct . No . 0 5 - CR- 1 0 0 5 6 - M LB)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *

B efor e T AC HA , C h ie f C ir c u it J u d g e , BA LD OCK , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s thr ee- j udge pane l has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al as s i s t ance i n the d e te rm in a tio n o f

th is a p p e a l. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 34( a) ( 2) ; 10th C i r . R . 34. 1( G ) . T he c a se is th e re f

o re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. Fol l ow i ng a j urytr i al , D efe ndant - A ppel l antG al en R enee B eac h w as convi ct ed of tw o count s of m ai l fr aud and one countof m aki ng a fa l s e cl ai m on hi s bankrupt cy pet i t i on. O n appea l , M r . B eac h chal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the evi dence s uppor t i ng- 2 -

eac h of the thr ee c ount s on w hi ch he w as convi ct ed. W e t ake j ur i s di ct i on under28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 a n d A F F IR M . I . BA CKGROUND O n S ep tem b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 1 , G alen an d V ickie B ea ch su b m itted a p ro se C h ap ter 7 b a n k ru p tcy pe tit io n to th e U n ited S tate s B a n k ru p tcy C o u rt, D istric t o f K a n sa s, se e k in g to di s char ge over$100, 000 i n uns ecur ed debt . T he nextday , the courtcl erk’ s offi ce cont act ed the B eac hes t o not i fythem of seve r al defi ci enci es i n thei rpet i t i on, i ncl udi ng th e i rf a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e s o c i a l s e c u r i tyn u mb e r s a n d s e v e r a l o f th e r e q u i r e d s c h e d u l e s . On Sept ember17, 2001, the B eac hes fi l ed a r evi s ed pet i t i on thati ncl uded, acc or di ng t o t he tes tim o n yo f

F B I S p e c ial A g e n t R a n d yW o lv e rto n , w h a t ap p e a re d to b e in ten tio n a lly tr ans pos ed s oci al s ecur i tynum ber s . Speci fi cal l y , M r s . B eac h’ s s oci al s ecur i tynum ber w as r ever s ed exa ct l y , and M r . B eac h’ s s oci al s ecur i tynum berw as r ever s ed w i th the exce pt i on of one number . T he courtdi d noti m m edi at el ydi s coverthe i ncorr ects oci al s ecur i tynum ber s ; hence , on Sept ember18, 2001, the courtpubl i s hed the typi cal not i ce of bankrupt cyw i th t he fa l s e s oci al s ecur i tynum ber s and s entthi s i nacc ur at e not i ce t o the cr edi t or s l i s t ed on the B eac hes ’ pet i t i on. T he cl erk’ s offi ce s oon di s cover ed thatthe s oci al s ecur i tynum ber s w er e i ncorr ectand cont act ed the B eac hes t o al ertthem t o the defi ci encyi n t hei rfi l i ng. O n Sept ember24, 2001, the B eac hes fi l ed an “ amended” bankrupt cypet i t i on thati ncl uded corr ects oci al s ecur i tynum ber s . A boutthi r tyday s aft er the f il ing o f th e “ am en d ed ” p eti ti o n , the b an k rup tcyco u rth eld a m ee ti n g o f th e c red it o rs aff ect ed bythe B eac hes ’ bankrupt cy , and abouts i xtyday s l at er , the courtgr ant ed aA U C C - 1 fi nanci ng s t at ementi s a met hod of gi vi ng not i ce of the exi s t ence of a 1 s e c u ri ty in te re s t c re a te d b ya s e c u ri ty ag re e m e n t. B L ACK ’ S L AW D I CTI ONARY 5 6 8 (5 th e d . 1 9 7 9 ). T h e sta tem e n t is f iled w ith th e S e c re tar yo f S tate a n d th u s b e c o m e s p u b lic - 3 - d is c h a rg e o f

d e b t in th e B e a c h e s ’ c a s e . A tthe begi nni ng of 2002, J . M i chae l M orr i s , the court - as s i gned bankrupt cy trus t ee, w ho w as r es pons i bl e forgather i ng the B eac hes ’ non- exemptpr opertyfor l i qui dat i on and di s tr i but i on t o t hei rcr edi t or s , s enta s t andar d form l ett ert o the B eac hes request i ng cop i es of t heirt ax return fo r 2001 . In r espon se, the B eache s sentM r. M orr i s a l ett erdecl i ni ng t o pr ovi de the t ax r eturn. T hi s l ett erw as the begi nni ng of a s er i es of l ett er s , s entvi a ce r t i fi ed mai l thr ough the U . S. Post al Ser vi ce, ul t i m at el yr es ul t i ng i n a demand forpaym entbyM r . M orr i s t o the B eac hes of $500, 000. I ncl uded i n the tr i al r ecor d ar e l ett er s fr om the B eac hes t o M r . M orr i s and fr om a not arypubl i c on beha l f of the B eac hes t o M r . M orr i s . T hes e l ett er s demand t hatM r . M orr i s pr ovi de the B eac hes an

“ a c c o u n tin g ” o f

so m e k in d , n o tifyM r. M o rris th a t h e is f a ili n g to c o m p lyw ith th e ir demands, pr ovi de a “ N ot i ce of D i s honor ” forM r . M orr i s ’ s fai l ur e t o r es pond t o the B eac hes ’ “pr es entm ent , ” i nform M r . M orr i s thathe i s i n “def aul t ” forfai l ur e t o r es pond to th e B e a c h e s , a n d is s u e a “ C e rt if ic a te o f P ro te s t” a g a in s t M r. M o rr is . U l t i m at el y , on A pr i l 17, 2003, the B eac hes s entM r . M orr i s a documents i gned by b o th G a len a n d V ick ie B e a c h in d ica tin g th a t th e yw e re “ a ttem p tin g to n e g o tiate a p riv a te s ett l ement ” w i th M r . M orr i s forhi s al l eged w r ongdoi ng t ow ar d them, cl ai m i ng thathe ow ed them $500, 000, and s t at i ng thati f he di d notpaythem w i thi n t en day s of the p o stm a rk o n th e lette r, th e yw o u ld f ile a U C C -1 f

in a n c in g sta tem e n t sh o w in g M r. M o rris 1re c o rd . I

d. A fi nanci ng s t at ementdoes noti t s el f cr eat e a s ecur i tyi nt er es t ; r ather , the purpos e of a fi nanci ng s t at ement“i s t o putthi r d part i es — us ual l ypr os pect i ve buy er s or lend ers— o n n o ti ce that there m ayb e a n en fo rce ab le sec u ri tyinterest” in the d eb tor’s p ro p e rt y . I

n r e Bi l oxiC as i no B el l e, I nc. , 3 6 8 F . 3 d 4 9 1 , 4 9 9 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). - 4 - as th e d eb tor i n the a m o u n t of $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . O n Ju ly1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , the B ea ch es f il ed a U C C -1 fi nanci ng s t at ementnami ng M r . M orr i s as the debt or . T he s t at ementw as bas ed on an “or der ” the B eac hes had obt ai ned fr om the “W es t ern A rbi tr at i on C ounci l ” i n U t ah, w hi ch co n clud ed that M r. M o rri s’s fa il u re to res p o n d to the B ea ch es’ n o ti ce o f a rbitrati o n b ef o re thatbodyr es ul t ed i n a $1. 5 m i l l i on arbi tr at i on “aw ar d” t o be pai d byM r . M orr i s t o the B eac hes . T he K ans as Secr et aryof St at e’ s offi ce pr oces s ed the U C C fi l i ng i n acc or dance w ith n o rm a l p ro c e d u re , res u lti n g in th e m a ili n g o f th e o rig in a l f

in a n c in g sta tem e n t b a c k to th e B e a c h e s . O n A ugus t27, 2003, the B eac hes s entM r . M orr i s one more cert i fi ed l ett er demandi ng paym entof the s uppos ed $500, 000 debt . T hi s l ett ert ol d M r . M orr i s thati f he fai l ed t o paythe demand, the B eac hes w oul d t ake “ l egal act i on i ncl udi ng, butnotl i m i t ed to [ ,] in v o lu n tar yb a n k ru p tcy an d /o r n o tify in g th e U n ited S tate s T ru ste e o f th is u n p a id s ecur i tydebt . ” T he B eac hes then att empt ed t o fol l ow thr ough w i th thi s thr eatand mai l ed a bond cl ai m t o L i bertyM utual I ns ur ance C om pany( “Li bertyM utual ”) , the bondi ng companyof the U . S. T rus t ee’ s offi ce. A t t ache d t o the cl ai m w as the arbi tr at i on “or der ” fr om the “W es t ern A rbi tr at i on C ounci l . ” Li bertyM utual pr oces s ed the bond cl ai m i n acc or danceA ttr i al , FB I Speci al A gentW ol vert on, a ce r t i fi ed publ i c ac count ant , t es t i fi ed that 2 he had r evi ew ed the var i ous document s the B eac hes had mai l ed t o M r . M orr i s , the b an k rup tcyco u rt , an d L ibertyM u tual, as w ell as th o se a sso ciated w ith the “ W estern A rbi tr at i on C ounci l , ” and de t erm i ned theyhad no l egal s i gni fi canc e. Speci al A gent W ol vert on al s o i nves t i gat ed w hetherther e w as anyl egal bas i s forthe $500, 000 cl ai m by the B eac hes agai ns tM r . M orr i s orforthe “W es t ern A rbi tr at i on C ounci l ” arbi tr at i on “aw ar d” and de t erm i ned ther e w as none. I ndeed, ata bankrupt cyhear i ng on Sept ember 17, 2003, M r . B eac h t es t i fi ed thathe di d not“have document at i on” t o s uppor tthe $ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0 c la im . - 5 - wi th n o r ma l p r o c e d u r e a n d u l t i ma t e l yr e j e c t e d th e c l a i m. 2 T h e B e a c h e s w e re in d icte d o n o n e c o u n t o f m a il fra u d in c o n n e c tio n w ith att empt i ng t o col l ectthe $500, 000 “aw ar d” fr om M r . M orr i s di r ect l y( C ountO ne) ; one c o u n t o f m a il fra u d in c o n n e c tio n w ith a ttem p tin g to c o llec t $ 5 0 0 ,7 2 0 f ro m L ib e rty M utual againstthe U . S . T rust ee’s bo nd (C ou nt Tw o); and on e cou nt of m aking a fals e decl ar at i on on a bankrupt cypet i t i on ( C ountT hr ee) . M r s . B eac h pl eade d gui l typur s uant t o a pl ea a gr eement . M r . B eac h had a j urytr i al , r es ul t i ng i n a gui l tyver di cton al l thr ee cou nts . I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r. B e a c h c h a llen g e s th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e a s to e a c h o f th e th re e c o u n ts o f h is c o n v ic tio n . W e re v ie w s u f f ic ie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e c la im s d e n o v o . U ni t ed Stat es v. Mi chel , 4 4 6 F .3 d 1 1 2 2 , 1 1 2 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). “I n d o in g so , w e v iew th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t an d d e ter m in e w h e th e r a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld have f ound t he def

endantgui l tyof the cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” I d. ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . “W e do notw ei gh confl i ct i ng evi dence ors econd- gues s the fa ct - fi ndi ng deci s i ons of the j ury , buti ns t ead mustdet erm i ne w hetherbas ed on the di r ectand- 6 -

c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , to g e th e r w ith th e re a s o n a b le in f e re n c e s to b e d ra w n th e re f ro m ,” s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e s u p p o rt s th e ju ry’s v e rd ic t. I d. ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itte d ). A . M ai l Fr aud “To est abl i s h gui l tunderthe mai l - fr aud s t atut e, 18 U . S. C . § 1341, the governm ent [ h a s] to p ro v e th a t (1 ) [ th e d e f e n d a n t] e n g a g e d in a sc h e m e o r a rtific e to d e f ra u d o r to o b tain m o n e yb ym e a n s o f f a lse a n d f

ra u d u len t p re ten se s; (2 ) h e d id so w ith th e in ten t to defr aud; and ( 3) he us ed the U ni t ed St at es m ai l s t o fac i l i t at e thats cheme. ” U ni t ed Stat es v . C h a v is , 461 F. 3d 1201, 1207 ( 10th C i r . 2006) ( quot at i ons and al t er at i ons om i t t ed) . T he g o v e rn m e n t m u s t a ls o p ro v e m a te ri a lity a s a n e le m e n t o f th e c ri m e . N

ederv. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 7 U .S . 1 , 2 5 (1 9 9 9 ). A sta tem e n t m a d e a s p a rt o f th e sc h e m e to d e f

ra u d is m at er i al “i f i thas a natur al t endenc yt o i nfl uence , ori s capa bl e of i nfl uenci ng, the d e c is io n o r a c tio n ” o f

th e p e rs o n o r e n tity to w h o m it is a d d re s s e d . U ni t ed Stat es v. Law r ence , 4 0 5 F .3 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 9 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). 1. C ountO ne C o u n t O n e c h a rg e s M r. B e a c h w ith m a il fra u d b a se d u p o n th e lette rs d ire c ted to M r . M orr i s demandi ng paym entof $500, 000. M r . B eac h cl ai m s ther e i s i ns uffi ci ent evi dence t o pr ove thathe us ed the U . S. m ai l i n connec t i on w i th thi s s cheme and t o s how th a t th e f ra u d u len t d e m a n d s f

u lf ill th e m a ter ialityre q u ire m e n t. M r. B e a c h f

irst a ss e rts th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e a s to th is c o u n t is i ns uffi ci entbeca us e the t es t i m onyof the r epr es ent at i ve of the Secr et aryof St at e’ s offi ce,- 7 -

to w h ich th e U C C -1 f

in a n c in g sta tem e n t w a s s e n t, i n d ica ted th a t th e re w a s n o w a yto d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e U C C f ilin g w a s s u b m itte d b yh a n d in T o p e k a o r s e n t v ia U .S . m a il. T hus , ther e i s no pr oof, M r . B eac h ar gues , thathe us ed the U . S. m ai l t o fac i l i t at e the al l eged f r audul ents cheme. B utthe fa ctthatthe Secr et aryof St at e ca nnotver i fyw hether th e Be a c h e s s e n tth e UC C f i n a n c i n g s t a t e me n tth r o u g h th e ma i l i s i rr e l e v a n tf o rtwo r eas ons . Fi r s t , even i f the B eac hes had hand- del i ver ed the U C C s t at ement , the fa ctthat th e S e c re tar yo f

S tate u se d th e m a il i n th e n o rm a l co u rse o f p ro c e ss in g th e sta tem e n t to r eturn a copyof the fi l ed s t at ementt o the B eac hes forthei rr ecor ds i s s uffi ci entevi dence th a t M r. B e a c h “ u s e d th e U n ite d S ta te s m a ils to f a c ilita te ” h is s c h e m e . C h a v is , 461 F. 3d at1207. “[I ] ti s notnece s s arythat. . . the part i ci pant s i n the fr aud s peci fi cal l yi nt ended thatthe mai l s be us ed. I ti s s uffi ci enti f the mai l s w er e i n f act us ed t o carryoutthe sc h e m e a n d if

th e u se o f

th e m a ils b ya p a rticip a n t oranotherw a s re a so n a b ly for es eea bl e. ” U

n itedS ta tes v . C u rtis , 5 3 7 F .2 d 1 0 9 1 , 1 0 9 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 7 6 ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). M o reo v er, th e u se o f th e m ail s n ee d n o t be a n esse n ti al elem en t of the s ch em e. It is s u f f ic ie n t if th e m a ilin g is in c id e n ta l to th e s c h e m e o r a s te p in th e p lo t. Schm uck v . U ni t ed Stat es , 4 8 9 U . S . 7 0 5 , 7 1 0

– 1 1 (19 8 9 ). S e c o n d , the p o ss ib ili tyth a t th e B e a c h e s d id n o t m a il th e U C C -1 sta tem e n t is i rr el evantbeca us e the s t at ementi s notthe onl ym ai l i ng i nvol ved i n the s cheme t o defr aud M r . M orr i s . T he B eac hes s entm ul t i pl e l ett er s di r ect l yt o M r . M orr i s demandi ng paym ent of the “a rbi tr at i on aw ar d” and thr eat eni ng t o putM r . M orr i s i nt o i nvol unt arybankrupt cy and t o not i fythe U . S. T rus t ee of hi s “unpai d s ecur i tydebt . ” These l ett er s i ncl udedM r . B eac h al s o appea r s t o ar gue thatthe U C C - 1 s t at ementcannotbe a ba s i s for 3 m ai l fr aud bec aus e the s t at ementi s nota “l egal document . ” Thi s fac ti s i rr el evantt o t he j ury ’ s fi ndi ng of gui l tfortw o r eas ons . Fi r s t , nothi ng i n the mai l fr aud s t atut e r equi r es th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t u s e le g a l d o c u m e n ts to p e rp e tr a te th e s c h e m e to d e f ra u d . See 18 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 . A n d se c o n d , as n o ted a b o v e , the U C C -1 sta tem e n t is n o t th e o n ly do cum ent byw hich M r. B each a t t em pted t o d efraud M r. M orr i s. - 8 - n o tari ze d sign ature s fro m M r. B ea ch . T h u s, there is suf ficien t evid en ce in the rec o rd f o r a r eas onabl e j uryt o concl ude thatM r . B eac h i n fac tus ed, and coul d r eas onabl yfor es ee that other s w ou l d u se, the U . S . m ai l i n the cou rs e of h i s schem e t o d efraud M r. M orr i s. F i n a l l y, M r . B e a c h a r g u e s th a tth e U C C f i l i n g d o e s n o tf

u l f i l l th e “ m a t e r i a l i ty” el ementof the mai l fr aud cha r ge w i th r es pectt o C ountO ne bec aus e ther e i s no evi dence th a t th e U C C f

ili n g re su lted in a n yin

ju ryo r d a m a g e to M r. M o rris. T o su p p o rt h is ar gum ent , M r . B eac h poi nt s t o M r . M orr i s ’ s t es t i m onythathe w as unaw ar e w hethert he U C C f ilin g c a u s e d h im a n ya c tu a l f in a n c ia l d a m a g e . T h is a rg u m e n t ig n o re s th e la w . Succes s ful compl et i on of the s cheme t o defr aud i s notan el ementof the mai l fr aud o f f e n s e . U nited S tates v. Stew art , 872 F. 2d 957, 960 ( 10th C i r . 1989) . T hus , “the g o v ern m en t do es n o t hav e to p rov e a ctua l r eli an ce u p o n the d ef en d an t’ s m isr ep rese n tat ion s n o r do theyh av e to p rov e tha t th e v ict im su ff ere d ac tual p ec u n iary l os s es fr om the s cheme. ” I d. C o n seq u en tl y , M r. M o rri s’s t esti m o n ythat h e w as u n aw are o f a n yd ir ec t dam ag es a g ains t him d o es n o t un d erm ine th e jury ’s find ing that M r. B ea ch ’s conductvi ol at ed the mai l fr aud s t atut e. 3 2 . Co u n tT wo C o u n t T w o o f

th e in d ictm e n t ch a rg e d M r. B e a c h w ith m a il fra u d f o r th e sc h e m e to- 9 -

d e f ra u d L ib e rtyM u tu a l. M r. B e a c h a rg u e s th e re is in su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt h is co n v ict ion b ec au se th e d em an d let ter sen t t o L ibertyM u tual b ea rs on lyM rs. B ea ch ’s s i gnatur e. E s s ent i al l y , M r . B eac h ar gues ther e i s no evi dence he u se d th e m a ils to fa cil it ate the fra u d . T o the c o n tr ary , the re co rd c o n tai n s su ff ici en t evid en ce fo r a r eas onabl e j uryt o fi nd thatM r . B eac h us ed, orcoul d for es ee thatother s w oul d us e, the m ai l s i n thi s s cheme t o defr aud. T he l ett ert o L i bertyM utual m akes a cl ai m on behal f of b o th M r. an d M rs. B ea ch . T h e lett er states tha t “pu rsua n t t o att ac h [sic] a rbitrati o n aw ard G alen an d V ickie B ea ch m ak e a claim ag ains t th e b o n d o f J. M icha el M o rri s. ” M o reo v er, the att ache d arbi tr at i on “aw ar d” fr om the “W es t ern A rbi tr at i on C ounci l ” r efe r s t o the “cl ai m ants , ” rather than a si ng l e cl ai m ant, and i ncludes the n am es of b oth M r. and M rs . B e a c h . In a d d iti o n , the d o c u m e n ts s u b m itt e d to th e “ W e ste rn A rb itratio n C o u n c il” in or dert o obt ai n t he “a rbi tr at i on aw ar d” bea rM r . B eac h’ s s i gnatur e. C i r cumst ant i al evi dence thus s uppor t s a r eas onabl e j ury ’ s concl us i on thatM r . B eac h part i ci pat ed i n t he eff or t s t o defr aud Li bertyM utual and thathe us ed, orcoul d for es ee thatother s w oul d us e, th e m a ils a s p a rt o f

th a t s c h e m e . M r. B e a c h a lso a rg u e s th a t th e re is n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt th e m a ter iality r equi r ementon C ountT w o beca us e Li bertyM utual det erm i ned the cl ai m w as i nval i d, and n eith er L ibertyM u tual n o r M r. M o rri s su ff ere d an yd am ag es. T h e law d o es n o t sup p o rt th is a rg u m e n t. A s p re v io u slye x p lain e d , n e ith e r su c c e ss f u l co m p letio n o f

th e sc h e m e to d e f ra u d n o r p e c u n ia ry d a m a g e to th e v ic tim o f th e f ra u d is re q u ir e d to f

in d m a te ri a lity. See S t ew art , 872 F. 2d at960.A ttr i al , an empl oy ee of the U . S. B ankrupt cyC our tt es t i fi ed thatthe bankrupt cy 4 c o d e a n d ru les a llo w f

o r c o rre c tio n s a n d a m e n d m e n ts to a n in c o m p lete o r in a c c u ra te p e tit io n w ith in th e f

irst f if tee n d a y s o f

f ili n g . A C h a p ter 7 d e b to r is a llo w e d to su b m it re q u ire d sc h e d u les w ith in f if tee n d a y s a f

ter f ili n g th e in iti a l sta tem e n t o f in ten tio n w ith th e b a n k ru p tc yc o u rt , a n d a d e b to r i s g e n e ra lly a llo w e d to a m e n d th e p e titio n . See Fed. R ul e B ankr . P. 1007( c) , 1009. M r . B eac h appea r s t o ar gue, w i thoutci t at i on t o any s t atut e, bankrupt cyrul e, orcas e, thatthe exi s t ence of thi s gr ace per i od and the l i ber al rul es foramendm entexcus e hi s conductbeca us e the B eac hes fi l ed an a m ended pe t i t i on w i th hi s corr ects oci al s ecur i tynum berw i thi n fi ft een da y s . A s not ed, how ever , the damage r es ul t i ng fr om M r . B eac h’ s m i s r epr es ent at i on w as al r eadydone bec aus e the n o tic e o f b a n k ru p tc yw ith th e f

a ls e n u m b e rs w a s p u b lis h e d p ri o r t o th e a m e n d m e n t.

- 10 - B . B ankrupt cyFr aud M r . B eac h w as convi ct ed under18 U . S. C . § 152( 3) for“know i ngl yand fr audul ent l ym ak[i ng] a fa l s e dec l ar at i on” r el at i ng t o a bankrupt cy . T he bas i s forthe char ge w as the fi l i ng of the B eac hes ’ C hapt er7 bankrupt cypet i t i on w i th fal s e s oci al s ecur i tynum ber s . T he G overnm ent ’ s evi dence i n s uppor tof the cha r ge i ncl uded the i ni t i al bankrupt cypet i t i on s ubm i t t ed w i thouts oci al s ecur i tynum ber s and the fi l ed peti t i on w i th the transposed social securi tynu m bers. M r. B each si gn ed b oth pet i t i on s, att es t i ng thatthe i nform at i on i n t he pet i t i ons w as true and c orr ect . Speci al A gent W ol vert on t es t i fi ed thatthe manneri n w hi ch the s oci al s ecur i tynum ber s w er e tr ans pos ed ind icated that en tryo f th e inc o rrect nu m b ers w as in tention al. In a d d it ion , M r. W ol vert on’ s t es t i m onyattr i al and M r . B eac h’ s t es t i m onyatthe Sept ember2003 b a n k ru p tcy pr o c e e d in g (th e p a rtiallyre d a c ted tra n sc rip t o f w h ich w a s a d m itt e d a t trial) ind icated that M r. B ea ch ac k n o w ledg ed d iscu ssing the o m issi o n s an d inco rrect nu m b ers w i th M r s . B eac h. M r . B eac h al s o admi t t ed thathe knew hi s s oci al s ecur i tynum berw as in c o rre c t. 4- 11 -

M r . B eac h ar gues , how ever , thatther e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence t o pr ove thathe a c ted w ith a n in ten t to d e f ra u d h is c re d ito rs. T h e ju ryin stru c tio n s s tate th a t “[ t]o a c t w ith ‘in ten t to d e f

ra u d ’ m e a n s to a c t . . . fo r th e p u rp o se o f c a u sin g so m e f

in a n c ial lo ss to an o ther, or b ri n g ing ab o u t a fina n cial ga in to o n ese lf o r an o ther, t o the d etri m en t of a third party . ” M r . B eac h cont ends thatbeca us e the l aw perm i t s hi s debtt o be di s char ged, he coul d nothave a ct ed w i th t he purpos e of c aus i ng fi nanci al gai n orl os s t o anotheror achi evi ng fi nanci al gai n forhi m s el f oranother . E s s ent i al l y , he as s ert s thatbeca us e he m a yleg iti m a telyd isc h a rg e th e u n d e rly in g d e b t, he d o e s n o t sta n d to “ g a in ,” n o r d o h is cr edi t or s s t and t o “l os e, ” anythi ng. T hi s ar gum enti s w i thoutm er i t . B as ed on the e v id e n c e a t trial, a r e a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t b yf ili n g th e f

a lse so c ial s e c u rity nu m bers, M r. B each int end ed to cause fi nan ci al l oss t o the B eache s’ credi t ors r egardl ess o f w h e th e r th e d e b t co u ld b e leg a llyd isc h a rg e d . M r. B e a c h ’s s ig n a tu re a ttes tin g th a t h is s oci al s ecur i tynum berw as corr ectl ed t o the publ i s hi ng of an i nacc ur at e not i ce of bankrupt cy . A s a r es ul t , i n addi t i on t o fai l i ng t o not i fythe cr edi t or s w hos e debthe w as see k ing to d isch arg e (p o tential lyp rev en ti n g them fro m rec o v ering fu n d s o w ed to the m ), M r . B eac h fai l ed t o not i fypot ent i al futur e cr edi t or s w ho r el yon the i nform at i on pr ovi ded b yc re d it r e p o rt in g a g e n c ie s . A s th e te s tim o n yf ro m m u ltip le w itn e s s e s re v e a ls , a ban kruptcyno t i ce i s a pub l i c record that i s of i nter estno ton l yt o the i nd i vidual credi t ors, butt o al l the i nt er es t ed part i es i n t he bankrupt cys y s t em, part i cul ar l ycr edi tbur eaus and a n y o n e w h o c o n s id e rs e x te n d in g c re d it to M r. B e a c h in th e f u tu re . M r . B eac h al s o ar gues thatthe evi dence s how s thatM r s . B eac h handl ed the- 12 -

paperw or k forthe bankrupt cypet i t i ons and i tw as M r s . B eac h thatent er ed the tr ans pos ed s oci al s ecur i tynum ber s . T hus , he cl ai m s , he w as unaw ar e of the err or , and the G ov ernm ent fai l ed to prove h e act ed w i th an i ntentt o d efraud. T his argum ent i s al so m erit less. A s n o ted, M r. B ea ch h im self a d m itted d iscu ssing the s o cial sec u ri tyn u m b ers w i th M r s . B eac h befor e s he omi t t ed them from t he i ni t i al pet i t i on and bef or e s he ent er ed the in co rrect nu m b ers o n the f il ed p eti ti o n . H e a lso k n ew the s o cial sec u ri tyn u m b ers w ere inco rrect. B ec au se in tent to d ef rau d is diff

icult t o p rov e b yd ir ec t evid en ce , a jury m aycons i derci r cumst ant i al evi dence of fr audul enti nt entand dr aw r eas onabl e i nfer ence s there fro m . F o r ex am p le, “[ i] n tent to d ef rau d m ayb e inf

erred fro m the d ef

en d an t’ s m is r epr es entat i ons [ o r] know l edge of a f al s e s tat em ent ,” Un i t e d

S ta t e s v . Pr o ws , 118 F. 3d 686, 692 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( emphasi s added) . T he evi dence s how s thatM r . B eac h w a s a w a re o f

th e f a lse sta tem e n ts in th e b a n k ru p tcy pe tit io n s a n d th a t h e a ttes ted to th e ir tru th d esp it e this k n o w ledg e. T h e juryw as f ree to inf er f rom this ev iden ce that M r. B eac h act ed w i th i nt entt o defr aud. In sum , i n o rderfor us t o v acat e M r. B each’s conv i ct i on on app eal , he m ust convi nce us thatthe evi dence w as s o l acki ng thatno r eas onabl e j urycoul d have f ound hi m gui l ty . H e has notdone s o. A ft ercar eful l yr evi ew i ng the r ecor d, w e conc l ude that the evi dence , w hen vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the G overnm ent , pr ovi ded a s uffi ci entbas i s fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e j urycoul d have f ound hi m gui l tybey ond a re a so n a b le d o u b t.- 13 - I I I . CO NC L US I ON F o rth e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we AFF I RM . ENTERED FOR TH E CO UR T,

D eane l l R eec e Tacha C hi ef Ci r cui tJ udge