2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-19-2006 

# U SA v . D e Lo s S ant o s P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-3387

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . D e L os S ant os " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 882. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/882T he H onor abl e J ane R. R oth as s um ed s eni ors t atus on M ay31, 2006. * NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 05- 3387

____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. I G N A CI A V ER A S D E LO S SA N TO S,

A ppel l ant

____________ O n A ppeal fr om the D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands

D i vi s i on of St . T hom as ( D . C . N o. 03- cr - 00040- 1) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e St anl eyS. B r ot m an

____________ A r gued M ay12, 2006 Be f o r e : F I S HE R, CO WEN a n d RO T H, C i r cui tJudges . * ( Fi l ed J une 19, 2006) St ephen A . B rus ch ( A r gued) I nt ernat i onal Pl aza , Sui t e 2G P. O . B ox 988 C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as U SV I 00804 A t t or ney f

orAppel lant2

K i m L . C hi s hol m ( A r gued) O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t orney U ni t ed St at es C our tH ous e, Sui t e 260 5500 V et er ans B ui l di ng C har l ot t e A m al i e, St . T hom as U SV I 00802- 6924 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee

____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ F IS H E R , C i r cui tJudge . I gnaci a V er as de l os Sant os w as convi ct ed bya j uryof cons pi r acy , w i r e fr aud, documentfr aud, and br i beryar i s i ng outof hereff or t s t o s ecur e fa l s e tr avel document at i on f o r a n ill e g a l alie n . S h e n o w a p p e a ls, c laim in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to s uppor tthe convi ct i ons , thatthe pr os ecut i on char ged onl yone cons pi r acybutpr oved tw o, thathertr i al s houl d have be en s ever ed fr om thos e of he rcodef endant s , and thatthe D i stri ctC ou rti m properl yi nst ruct ed the j uryand i m perm i ssi blyl i m i t ed h er r i gh tt o crosse x a mi n e wi tn e s s e s r e g a r d i n g b i a s . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I. A. T he cons pi r acyi n thi s cas e, ai m ed atobt ai ni ng fal s e tr avel document at i on for ill e g a l alie n s, w a s m a n if e ste d in tw o d istin c t sc h e m e s. M s. V e ra s p a rticip a ted d ire c tlyin onl yone, buts he w as hel d cr i m i nal l yr es pons i bl e forboth.3 1. Jo se A g u stin R e y e s H ilario , a c iti z e n o f th e D o m in ica n R e p u b lic, a rriv e d ill e g a lly i n St . T hom as , the V i r gi n I s l ands , s om et i m e bef or e 2003. H e t ook up r es i dence i n the ci tyand bega n w or ki ng. B ut , notpl eas ed w i th hi s i ncome and empl oym entpr os pect s , he s o u g h ta n o p p o r tu n i ty t o tr a v e l t o N e w Y o r k C i ty. T h at op p o rtu n ityca m e in th e f o rm o f a m an w h o ap p roa ch ed M r. H il ario a t w o rk and ca l l ed hi m s el f “Fernando. ” M r . H i l ar i o l at eri dent i fi ed thi s m an as A gus t i n V er as de lo s S a n to s, th e b ro th e r o f M s. V e ra s. T h e tw o sp o k e a b o u t M r. H ilario ’s d e sire to w o rk in the U n it ed S tat es, an d M r. V era s ind icated that h is si ster co u ld h elp M r. H il ario to se cu re au tho ri za ti o n fo r trav el an d em p loym en t w ith in the U n it ed S tat es. M r. V era s told M r. H i l ari o thathe sho uld m eether atan ap artm ent i n S t . T ho m as. W hen M r . H i l ar i o w entt o the apa r t m ent , M s . V er as i ntr oduced he r s el f as “R acque l . ” She i nform ed M r . H i l ar i o thatherboy fr i end, l at eri dent i fi ed as Pedr o V ega, w o rk e d f o r th e im m ig ra tio n se rv ice a n d c o u ld “ sta m p ” h is p a ss p o rt. T h e “ sta m p ” to w hi ch M s . V er as r efe rr ed i s an “a l i en document at i on, i dent i fi cat i on, and t el ecomm uni cat i on” s t amp, comm onl yknow n as an “A D I T ” s t amp. T he D epart m entof H om el and Secur i tyus es A D I T s t amps as a t empora rym eans t o r efl ectl egal i m m i gr at i on st atus, enti t l i ng the b earert o tr avel and w ork w i thin the U nit ed S t at es. M s. V eras adv i sed M r. H i l ari o that“t he st am p an d all this pap erw ork” w ou l d co st $ 4 , 0 0 0 . H e a g ree d , an d left his D o m inican p assp o rtw ith M s. V era s. T w o w ee k s lat er,4

M s . V er as cal l ed and i nform ed hi m thatthe pas s por tw as r eady . H e w entt o the apa r t m ent and w as m etbyM r . V er as . M r . H i l ar i o gave M r . V er as the money , and M r . V er as gave M r. H il ario the p assp o rt , w h ich n o w h ad an A D IT stam p u p o n it . M r. V era s told M r. H i l ari o that , w hen he d eci ded t o tr avel, he sho uld cal l M s. V eras . T w o w eeks aft err ece i vi ng the pas s por t , M r . H i l ar i o m ade pl ans t o tr avel t o the U n ite d S ta te s th ro u g h S a n J u a n , P u e rt o R ic o . U s in g a p a yp h o n e , h e c a lle d M s . V e ra s . She t ol d hi m thatherboy fr i end, M r . V ega, w oul d hel p hi m thr ough cus t om s butneede d t o k no w w hat cl othes he w ou l d b e w eari ng . M r. H i l ari o d escr i bed his cl othi ng , and M s. V er as as ked hi m t o cal l herback i n a fe w m om ent s . W hen he di d s o, M s . V er as s ai d that everythi ng had bee n arr anged. Shor t l yther eaf

t er , M r . H i l ar i o w entt o the ai rpor t . M r . V ega pe r s onal l ychec ked h is p a s s p o rt , to o k h im th ro u g h th e c u s to m s p ro c e s s , a n d a llo w e d h im to b o a rd h is p la n e . H e f lew o u t o f

S t. T h o m a s w ith o u t in c id e n t. T he l andi ng w as nots o s m ooth. U pon arr i val i n San J uan, he w as arr es t ed by a g e n ts o f th e D e p a rtm e n t o f

H o m e lan d S e c u rity . T h e re a so n f o r th e a rre st, a c c o rd in g to M r. H ila ri o , w a s th a t “ [ h is ] p a p e rs w e re n o t le g a l.” 2. Al t a g r a c i a Ra mi r e z e n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i l l e g a l l yi n 1 9 9 9 . S h e wa s , a ts o me p o in t, ap p re h e n d e d b yim m ig ra tio n o f f icia ls. In late 2 0 0 3 , sh e a g re e d to a ss ist th e m in i nves t i gat i ng cas es of i m m i gr at i on fr aud.A p re v io u s tria l h a d p ro d u c e d a h u n g ju ry , an d e n d e d in m istria l. 1 5 H e r e f f o rts le d o f

f icia ls to M r. V e g a . A n a c q u a in tan c e in tro d u c e d M s. R a m ire z to a fr i end of M r . V ega, w ho s ai d thatM r . V ega c oul d s ecur e forheran “I - 94, ” a doc um ent iss u e d b yc u sto m s o f

f icia ls re f lec tin g leg a l im m ig ra tio n sta tu s. M s. R a m ire z p a id appr oxi m at el y$3, 000 forM r . V ega’ s s ervi ces . She w as l at erpr ovi ded an I - 94. P lans w ere m ad e f

o r M s. R am ir ez to tr av el t o the U n it ed S tat es, un d er M r. V eg a’s au sp ices. H o w ev er, th e tri p w as c an ce ll ed af ter M r. V eg a b ec am e c o n ce rne d o v er a pos s i bl e i nves t i gat i on byi m m i gr at i on offi ci al s . H i s fea r s pr oved w el l - founded: he w as arrested so o n there af

ter. B. A n i ndi ctm entagai ns tM s . V er as , M r . V er as , and M r . V ega w as fi l ed i n the D i s tr i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands . I tchar ged them w i th cons pi r acyi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371, w i r e fr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1343, documentfr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1546, and br i beryi n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 201. T r i al comm ence d on A ugus t24, 2004. B efor e the s t artof t es t i m ony , M s . V er as 1 m oved t o s everhercas e fr om thos e of he rcodef endant s . She ar gued thats he w oul d be pr ej udi ced byi ntr oduct i on of a pr i ors t at ementbyM r . V er as i n w hi ch he ha d i m pl i cat ed both hi m s el f and hi s s i s t eri n the s cheme t o pr ocur e a f al s e A D I T s t amp. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , h o ld in g th a t re d a c tio n o f th e sta tem e n t to e lim in a te a ll refer ences t o a co con spi rat or w ou l d am el i orat e anypo t enti al prej ud i ce t o M s. V eras .6

T he fi r s tw i tnes s forthe governm entw as M r . H i l ar i o. H e admi t t ed thathe had enter ed the V i rgi n Isl and s i l l egall yand recoun t ed h i s encou nter s w i th M r. V eras and M s. V er as , w hom he i dent i fi ed as “Fernando” a nd “R acque l . ” H e al s o confi r m ed thathe had pai d $4, 000 forthe A D I T s t amp and t hatM r . V ega ha d per s onal l yas s i s t ed hi m thr ough the cu st om s process. D efe ns e couns el att empt ed t o ques t i on M r . H i l ar i o r egar di ng paym ent s he had r ece i ved as a w i tnes s forthe governm ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our ti nt ervened, on obj ect i on by the p rose cu ti o n , an d p rec lud ed co u n sel fro m this l ine o f in q u iry . Itinstructed the ju ry that , beca us e thes e paym ent s w er e author i zed bys t atut e, theycoul d notbe cons i der ed as evi dence of bi as orm ot i ve. T he nextw i tnes s w as M r . H i l ar i o’ s m other . She t es t i fi ed thats he had pr ovi ded the $4 , 00 0 fo r herson to obtai n the A D IT st am p. S he als o recal l ed thataft er the arr estM s. V er as , acc om pani ed byM r . V ega, had vi s i t ed herand r eturned appr oxi m at el y$1, 500. T h e p ro s e c u tio n th e n in tr o d u c e d in to e v id e n c e , th ro u g h a g o v e rn m e n t a g e n t, a s t at ementt aken f

r om M s . V er as s hor t l yaft erherarr es t . She admi t t ed i n the s t at ement thats he w as gener al l yknow n as “R acque l , ” thats he w as M r . V ega’ s gi r l fr i end, and that sh e h ad h elpe d “tw o g u y s” – o n e o f w h o m w as n am ed “F ern an d o ” – to “g et w o rk author i zat i ons . ” H ow ever , s he i ndi cat ed thats he had “ no know l edge that[M r . ] V ega ha s b e e n o r i s d o in g a n yth in g h a v in g to d o w ith im m ig ra tio n d o c u m e n ts .”T he al t er at i ons betw een the or i gi nal and r edac t ed s t at ement s ar e di agr amed 2 b e l o w: O r i gi nal St at ement R edac t ed St at ement Q: I s th a ta d d r e s s u n d e ry o u rn a me ? DELETED A : U nderm ys i s t er , I gnaci a V er as de l os S antos. O r i gi nal St at ement R edac t ed St at ement Q: Do y o u k n o w i f

th e r e a r e a n yp a s s p o r t s S AM E i n y ourapart m ent , w hi ch do notbel ong to a n y o n e re sid in g in th e a p a rtm e n t? A : Y es. O r i gi nal St at ement R edac t ed St at ement Q: To who m do th e s e p a s s p o r t s b e l o n g ? DELETED A : T heybel ong t o the peopl e w ho l eft them w i th m ys i s t erI gnaci a. O r i gi nal St at ement R edac t ed St at ement Q : T o w hom di d y ou gi ve the moneythat Q : W hatdi d y ou do w i th that F e rn a n d o g a v e yo u ? m o n e y? A : T o m ys i s t erH i gnaci a ( s i c) . A : T he nextday , I pas s ed i tas Q : W hen di d y ours i s t erI gnaci a come for i ns truct ed. th e m o n e y? A : T h e f

o l l o w i n g d a y. 7 T he governm ental s o i ntr oduced a r edac t ed ver s i on of the s t at ementt aken f r om M r . V er as s hor t l yaft erhi s arr es t . I n the or i gi nal s t at ement , M r . V er as admi t t ed thathe had part i ci pat ed i n the s cheme t o s ecur e a f al s e A D I T s t amp and had oper at ed underthe dir ect i on of M s. V eras . T he st at em ent w as r edacted t o eli m i nate al l refer ences t o M s. V e ra s. T h e D istric t C o u rt a d m itt e d th e re d a c ted sta tem e n t an d in stru c ted th e ju ryto

2O r i gi nal St at ement R edac t ed St at ement

Q : W h a t d id [ th e p e rso n ] te ll y o u [ w h e n h e Q : W h a t d id [ th e p e rso n ] te ll br oughtm oneyfora s econd t i m e] ? y ou [w hen he br ought A : H e told m e “ I am b ri n g ing this m o n ey m o n eyfo r a se co n d ti m e]? s o thaty ou can gi ve i tt o R aquel . ” A : H e as ked me t o gi ve the m oneyas befor e. See U ni t ed Stat es v. V

er as de l os Sant os , 1 6 3 F ed . A p p x . 1 3 2 , 1 3 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

8 cons i deri t“as [M r . V er as ’ s ] s t at ement , and notthe s t at ementof any one el s e, orattr i but ed to a n y o n e e ls e w h o is o n tr ia l.” T he governm ental s o pr es ent ed s ever al t el ephone c om panyempl oy ees , w ho t es t i fi ed r egar di ng cal l s m ade byand t o M r . V ega a nd M s . V er as al l egedl yi n fur ther ance o f th e sc h em e. T h ese ca ll s w ere rou ted a cro ss terri tori al bo u n d aries, ou tsi d e the b o rde rs of the V i rgi n Isl and s. A t th e c o n c lu sio n o f

tes tim o n y , d e f

e n se c o u n se l m o v e d f

o r ju d g m e n t o f

a c q u itt a l, arg u ing that the g o v ern m en t had n o t sat isfied its ev iden ti aryb u rde n . In p arti cu lar, co u n sel p o inted o u t th at no n e o f th e g o v ern m en t w itn esse s h ad test ifi ed that the A D IT s t amp on M r . H i l ar i o’ s pas s por tw as fr audul ent . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr es erved dec i s i on on the mot i on. C ouns el pr ocee ded w i th cl os i ng ar gum ent s , and the j uryw as char ged. T he D i s tr i ct C ou rtspeci fi cal l yi nst ruct ed the j uryt o co nsi der the ch arges and the evidence ag ai nst e a c h d e f e n d a n ti n d i v i d u a l l y. T he j uryr eturned a ve r di ctof gui l tyon al l count s on Sept ember8, 2004.9 C. F o llo w in g tr ia l, th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to o k u p th e m o tio n f o r j u d g m e n t o f

a c q u itta l. D e f e n se c o u n se l ar g u e d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n h a d n o t p re se n ted su f f icie n t ev id e n c e to su p p o rt th e c o n v ictio n s a n d th a t, ev e n if it h a d , ith a d im p e rm iss ib lyp ro v e n tw o se p a ra te cons pi r aci es – one i nvol vi ng the pr ocur ementof the A D I T s t amp and t he otheri nvol vi ng the p rocurem ent of the I- 94 – w hen the indi ct m ent al l eged on l yon e. C ou nsel al so a ss e rte d th a t th e p ro se c u tio n h a d n o t p ro v e n w ire f ra u d b e c a u se “ it w a s n o t re a so n a b ly for es eea bl e that[the def endant s ’ phone ca l l s ] w oul d cr os s the t err i t or i al boundary . ” Fi nal l y , couns el r enew ed the cont ent i on thatM s . V er as ’ s cas e s houl d have be en s ever ed from tho se of h er codefen dan t s. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed the mot i on. I tconcl uded thatthe j urycoul d have r eas onabl yi nferr ed thatthe A D I T s t amp w as fr audul entfr om “the manneri n w hi ch the . . . s t amp w as acqui r ed, ” the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng M r . H i l ar i o’ s arr es t , and “[M s . ] R ami r ez’ s t es t i m ony . ” I tr ej ect ed the ar gum entthatthe pr os ecut i on w as r equi r ed to p ro v e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts c o u ld “ re a so n a b lyf o re se e ” th a t th e ir tele p h o n e c a lls w o u ld be r out ed outof the t err i t ory , and hel d thats ever ance w as unnece s s arybeca us e r edac t i on of M r. V eras ’s st at em ent had am el i orat ed an yprej ud i ce t o M s. V eras .S eparat e app eal s w ere fi l ed b yM r. V eras and M r. V ega. Th e j ud gm ent agai nst 3 M r . V er as w as aff

i r m ed i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

er as de l os Sant os , 163 Fed. A ppx. 132 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ), an d th e ju d g m e n t ag a in st M r. V e g a is a d d re ss e d in a se p a ra te o p in io n b yth is p a n e l, s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. V

ega , N o . 0 5 -23 8 9 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

10 M s . V er as w as s ubs equent l ys ent ence d t o a t erm of i m pr i s onm entof tw enty - ei ght m onths . T hi s t i m el yappea l fol l ow ed. 3 II. M s . V er as r ai s es s ever al chal l enges t o the j udgm entof convi ct i on. For emost , s he a rg u e s th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to e sta b lish th e e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e s w ith w h ich sh e w a s c h a rg e d . S h e a lso a rg u e s th a t th e p ro se c u tio n c re a ted a n im p e rm iss ib le var i ance bypr ovi ng tw o cons pi r aci es w hen onl yone w as al l eged i n the i ndi ctm ent , that h er c ase sh o u ld h av e b ee n sev ere d fro m tho se in v o lving h er c o d ef en d an ts, that the ju ry s houl d have be en i ns truct ed thati tm us tcons i derthe cha r ges agai ns teac h defe ndant in d iv id u a lly , an d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt im p ro p e rlylim ited d e f e n se c o u n se l’s rig h t to cr os s - exami ne w i tnes s es r egar di ng bi as . T hes e i s s ues w i l l be addr es s ed i n turn. A. It is a x io m a tic th a t a c o n v ic tio n m u s t b e s u p p o rt e d b ys u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e . See , e. g. , B urks v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 437 U . S. 1, 16- 17 ( 1978) . T he r ecor d, cons i der ed i n the l i ght m o st f a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, m u st p ro v id e a n a d e q u a te b a sis f o r a ra tio n a l ju ro r to c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t c o m m itte d e a c h a n d e v e ry e le m e n t o f th e c h a rg e d c ri m e s . U n itedS ta tes v . B ro d ie , 403 F. 3d 123, 133 ( 3d C i r . 2005) . T hi s i s , of cour s e, a r ather11

m in im a l b u rd e n . I

d. O nl yi f a c onvi ct i on i s obj ect i vel yi rr at i onal – pl ai nl ybas ed on sp e c u latio n ra th e r th a n ra tio n a liza tio n a n d n e c e ss a rilyig n o rin g th e p re se n c e o f re a so n a b le d o u b t a s to g u ilt – s h o u ld th e c o u rt o v e rt u rn th e v e rd ic t. E . g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar tw r ight , 3 5 9 F . 3 d 2 8 1 , 2 8 7 -88 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). M s . V er as w as char ged w i th fourcr i m es : cons pi r acy , w i r e fr aud, documentfr aud, and br i bery . She w as convi ct ed of a l l offe ns es , and now chal l enges the s uffi ci encyof the r ecor d as t o eac h. 1. A cr i m i nal cons pi r acy , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 371, i s es t abl i s hed bypr oof that

“ tw o o r m o re p e rs o n s c o n s p ir e [ d ] . . . t o c o m m it a n yo f f e n s e a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s . . . and [that ] one orm or e of s uch per s ons d[i d] anyactt o eff ectthe obj ectof the cons pi r acy . ” I

d. W e have i nt erpr et ed thi s pr ovi s i on t o encompas s thr ee e l ement s : ( 1) an agr eementbetw een tw o orm or e per s ons t o comm i ta fe der al cr i m e, ( 2) know l edge of the purpos e of the cons pi r acyand a de l i ber at e dec i s i on t o j oi n i n thatpurpos e, and ( 3) comm i s s i on of an “ overtact ” byone of the part i ci pant s i n fur ther ance of the c o n s p ir a c y . U

ni t ed Stat es v. C onl ey , 3 7 F . 3 d 9 7 0 , 9 7 6 -77 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T hes e el ement s ar e s at i s fi ed i n thi s cas e. T her e i s no doubt , bas ed on a vi ew of the e v id e n c e in a lig h t f

a v o ra b le to th e g o v e rn m e n t, th a t th e th re e d e f e n d a n ts w e re e n g a g e d in an arran g em en t t o p rov ide M r. H il ario w ith an A D IT stam p . M r. V era s ap p roa ch ed M r. H i l ar i o, an al i en w ho had ent er ed the V i r gi n I s l ands i l l egal l y , t o det erm i ne w hetherhe12

w ou l d b e w i l l i ng t o p ayfor an A D IT st am p. H e placed M r. H i l ari o in contactw i th M s. V er as , w ho arr anged f

oran exc hange of

the pas s portand the money . T he pas s por tw as forw arded t o M r. V ega, w ho affixed t he A D IT st am p, and w as r eturned to M r. V eras , w ho r et ai ned i tunt i l cl ai m ed. M r . H i l ar i o then s chedul ed a t i m e t o l eave St . T hom as , and w as s hepher ded thr ough the cus t om s pr oces s byM r . V ega. D e sp ite th e lac k o f

d ire c t ev id e n c e o n th e p o in t, th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g th is s cheme gi ve r i s e t o an i nfer ence thatthe part i ci pant s under s t ood thatthe A D I T s t amp w as f ra u d u le n t. See B ro d ie , 403 F. 3d at134 ( “The el ement s of cons pi r acy. . . can be pr oven ent i r el ybyci r cumst ant i al evi dence . ”) . T he tr ans act i on t ook pl ace ata pr i vat e r es i dence , out s i de norm al channe l s . I ti nvol ved an a l i en w ho w as i n the countryi l l egal l y , and su b ject t o d ep o rt ati o n . Itw as c o n d u cted fo r a large su m o f m o n ey , p aid in ca sh . It r equi r ed the i nvol vementof a gove rnm entoffi ci al , w ho i nt ervened t o pr ovi de the al i en w ith f a c ia lly v a lid d o c u m e n ta tio n a n d u n in te rr u p te d p a s s a g e th ro u g h th e c u s to m s p ro c e s s . A rea so n ab le j u ror c o u ld inf er f rom thes e c ir cu m stan ce s tha t th e c o n sp ir ators w ere aw are th a t th e p ro d u c t o f

th e ire f f o rt s , th e A D IT s ta m p , w a s f ra u d u le n t. See i d. ( “[W ] e do not v iew the g o v ern m en t’ s ev iden ce in isolati o n , b u t r athe r, in co n jun cti o n an d as a w h o le. ”); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. Y

t em , 2 5 5 F . 3 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 6 -97 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). T h e p ri m a ry c a s e c ite d b yd e f e n s e c o u n s e l in s u p p o rt o f a c q u itta l, U

ni t ed Stat es v. C ar tw r ight , 3 5 9 F .3 d 2 8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ), i s f a c tu a lly in a p p o s ite . C ar tw r ightfol l ow ed a lin e o f p re c e d e n t h o ld in g th a t k n o w led g e o f c rim in a l ac tiv ityis in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt aSee a l so U n itedS ta tes v . M

a str a n g e lo , 1 7 2 F .3 d 2 8 8 , 2 9 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); U ni t ed 4 S ta t e s v . I

d o wu , 1 5 7 F .3 d 2 6 5 , 2 6 6 -6 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Thom as , 114 F. 3d 4 0 3 , 4 0 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Salm on , 9 4 4 F . 2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. W

exler , 8 3 8 F .2 d 8 8 , 9 0 -9 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. C ooper , 567 F . 2 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 4 -55 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). 13 convi ct i on of cons pi r acyi f the def endantdi d notunder s t and the part i cul arnatur e of the c ri m in a l a c tiv ity. I

d. at286- 87. T hi s cas e i s m arkedl ydi ffe r ent . T he def endant s w or ked 4 to g e th e r t o a c h ie v e a k n o w n , c o m m o n e n d : o b ta in a n A D IT s ta m p f o r a n ille g a l a lie n . T h e yw e re a ll a w a re o f

th e o b je c tiv e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c ya n d to o k a c tio n s to w a rd th a t g o a l. U nl i ke C ar tw r ight , w her e the r ecor d demonstr at ed know l edge onl yof “s om e s or t ” of ille g a lity, s ee i d. , the r ecor d i n thi s cas e s uppor t s an i nfer ence thatthe def endant s knew of th e p a r t i c u l a ru n l a w f

u l e n d o f th e c o n s p i r a c y. T h e e v id e n c e p re se n ted a t trial w a s s u f f icie n t to p ro v e th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts k n o w ing lyen tered into a n ag ree m en t t o p rov ide M r. H il ario w ith a f rau d u lent A D IT s t amp and t ook aff

i r m at i ve s t eps t o achi eve thi s goal . T he cons pi r acyconvi ct i on w i l l be uphel d. 2. W ire f ra u d is d e f

in e d u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 3 a s th e u se o f in ter sta te comm uni cat i ons i n fur ther ance of a “ s cheme orart i fi ce t o defr aud. ” I d. T o s us t ai n a convi ct i on underthe s t atut e, the r ecor d m us ts how thatthe def endant( 1) know i ngl yand w ill f u llyp a rticip a ted in a sc h e m e o r a rtific e to d e f ra u d , (2 ) p o ss e ss e d a sp e c if ic in ten t to defr aud, and ( 3) us ed w i r e comm uni cat i ons i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce, orr eas onabl yfor es aw14

th a t s u c h w ir e s w o u ld b e u s e d , in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

th e s c h e m e . U

ni t ed Stat es v. A nt i co , 275 F . 3 d 2 4 5 , 2 6 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). Forthe s ame r eas ons thatthe r ecor d demonstr at es a cons pi r acyt o s ecur e a fr audul entA D I T s t amp, the r ecor d demonstr at es a s cheme t o defr aud the publ i c. T he defe ndant s s oughtt o pr ovi de an i l l egal al i en w i th a fr audul entA D I T s t amp i n excha nge f o rp a yme n t . Th e s t a mp wa s o b t a i n e d th r o u g h th e a u s p i c e s o f a Un i t e d S t a t e s c u s t o ms offi ci al , M r . V ega, w ho w as r es pons i bl e forenfor ci ng the i m m i gr at i on l aw s and pr event i ng i s s uance of i nval i d s t amps. T o achi eve the goal of the s cheme, M r . V ega w as r equi r ed t o di s r egar d thes e mandat es and pr ovi de an A D I T s t amp t o an al i en w ho w as not a u th o riz e d to tra v e l in th e c o u n try . B e c a u se th is a c tio n d e p riv e d th e p u b lic o f its “i nt angi bl e r i ghtof hones ts ervi ces , ” s ee 18 U . S. C . § 1346, the cons pi r acycons t i tut ed a “s cheme orart i fi ce t o defr aud. ” See i d. T he onl yotherel ementi n di s put e i s w hetherthe s cheme i nvol ved the us e of “w i r e . . . comm uni cat i on i n i nt er s t at e . . . comm er ce. ” I d. § 1343. D efe ns e couns el arg u es th at th is el em en t r eq u ir es p roo f n o t on lythat the d ef en d an t use d w ir e c o m m u n ica tio n s in f

u rth e ra n c e o f

th e sc h e m e , b u t als o th a t h e o r sh e c o u ld “ re a so n a b ly for es ee” thatthos e comm uni cat i ons w oul d tr avel i nt er s t at e. W e di s agr ee. T he ques t i on i s , ati t s es s ence , one of s t atut oryi nt erpr et at i on. T he st atute pr ov i des, i n p ert i nen tpart , as fol l ow s: W h o e v e r, h a v in g d e v ise d o r in ten d in g to d e v ise a n ysc h e m e o r a rtific e to defr aud, . . . tr ans m i t s orcaus es t o be tr ans m i t t ed bym eans of w i r e, r adi o,15

o r t e le v is io n c o m m u n ic a tio n in in te rs ta te o r f o re ig n c o m m e rc e , a n y. . . s i gnal s . . . ors ounds forthe purpos e of e xecut i ng s uch s cheme orart i fi ce, sh all b e [ g u il tyo f w ir e f rau d ]. I d. T h is p ro v isio n d o e s n o t, by i ts o w n ter m s, re q u ire th a t th e d e f e n d a n t “r e a so n a b ly fo rese e” that the c o m m u n icati o n s w o u ld cro ss terri tori al bo u n d aries. Su ch a “ scien ter” r equi r ements houl d thus be i m pos ed onl yi f one maybe r ead i nt o the s t atut e. T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s, in f a c t, state d th a t a s c ien ter re q u ire m e n t sh o u ld g e n e ra lly b e re a d in to a c ri m in a l s ta tu te e v e n a b s e n t e x p re s s s ta tu to ry su p p o rt . U ni t ed Stat es v. X - C i t em ent

V i deo, I nc. , 513 U . S. 64, 70- 71 ( 1994) ( ci t i ng Stapl es v. U ni t ed Stat es , 511 U .S . 6 0 0 (1 9 9 4 ); Mor is s et t e v. U ni t ed Stat es , 3 4 2 U .S . 2 4 6 (1 9 5 2 )). T h is p rin c ip le is b a se d o n th e p re su m p tio n th a t C o n g re ss in ten d s to p u n ish o n lyc u lp a b le c o n d u c t, c o m m itte d b ya n in d iv id u a l w h o c o n s c io u s ly en g a g e s in c ri m in a l b e h a v io r. See Mo ris se tte , 342 U . S. at261- 63. T hi s pr es um pt i on does notappl y , how ever , t o “j ur i s di ct i onal fac t s . ” X - C i t em ent V i deo , 513 U . S. at72 n. 3 ( ci t i ng U n itedS ta tes v . Fe o la , 42 0 U . S . 67 1 (197 5)) . T hese fac t s do notdefi ne i m pr operorcul pabl e beha vi or , butexi s tm er el yt o confe rj ur i s di ct i on o v e r c e rt a in o f

f e n s e s in th e f

e d e ra l c o u rt s . Fe o la , 4 2 0 U . S . at 67 6 n . 9 . S ince theyare i rr el evantt o the cul pabi l i tyof the off ender , ther e i s no bas i s t o appl ythe pr es um pt i on of a s c ie n te r r e q u ir e m e n t. See X - C i t em ent

V i deo , 513 U . S. at70- 72 & n. 3. T he i nt er s t at e el ementof 18 U . S. C . § 1343 i s pr oper l ydeemed a “j ur i s di ct i onal f a c t.” A lth o u g h th e leg isla tiv e h isto ryo f th e p ro v isio n is s p a rse a t b e st, it se e m s p lain16

thatthe i nt er s t at e el ementw as i ncl uded s i m pl yt o ens ur e thatfede r al court s w oul d have ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e s e o f f e n s e s u n d e r t h e C o m m e rc e C la u s e . See , e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. B r yant , 7 6 6 F .2 d 3 7 0 , 3 7 5 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). A f ra u d is n o les s c u lp a b le w h e n it i s comm i t t ed overi ntr as t at e – as oppos ed t o i nt er s t at e – w i r es , and ther e i s no i ndi cat i on that C o n g re ss w a s p a rticu lar lyc o n c e rn e d w ith th e e f f e c t o f in ter sta te – a s o p p o se d to in tr a s ta te – tr a n s m is s io n s w h e n it e n a c te d th e s ta tu te . I d. T he onl ypl aus i bl e r eas on for C o n g re s s to h a v e in c lu d e d th is e le m e n t w a s to c o n f e r j u ri s d ic tio n o n th e f

e d e ra l c o u rt s . T h u s , th e p re s u m p tio n o f a s c ie n te r r e q u ir e m e n t d o e s n o t a p p ly. I d. T hi s hol di ng acc or ds w i th the conc l us i ons r eac hed byothercourt s thathave c o n s id e re d th e is s u e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. R i char ds , 2 0 4 F . 3 d 1 7 7 , 2 0 7 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by U n itedS ta tes v . L o n g o ria , 2 9 8 F . 3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 2 n . 6 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Li ndem ann , 8 5 F .3 d 1 2 3 2 , 1 2 4 1 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. B lackm on , 8 3 9 F .2 d 9 0 0 , 9 0 7 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ); B r yant , 7 6 6 F .2 d a t 3 7 5 ; U ni t ed Stat es v. B la s s i n g a me , 4 2 7 F .2 d 3 2 9 , 3 3 0 (2 d C ir . 1 9 7 0 ), c itedw ith a p p ro v a l in U

ni t ed Stat es v. Ia n n e lli , 4 7 7 F .2 d 9 9 9 , 1 0 0 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 7 3 ), and U n itedS ta tes v . D e C a v a lca n te , 440 F. 2d 1264, 1268 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 1971) . O nl ythe C our tof A ppeal s forthe Fi fth C i r cui thas h e ld to th e c o n tr a ry, s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. B r um l ey , 5 9 F . 3 d 5 1 7 , 5 2 0 & n . 5 (5th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ),D efen se coun sel ci t es B ent zv. U ni t ed Stat es , 21 F. 3d 37 ( 3d C i r . 1994) , as s t at i ng 5 a contr aryrul e. I tdoes not . W e hel d i n B e n tzthat , t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng thatthe def endant “caused ” a w i re com m un i cat i on un der 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 3, the p rosecut i on m ust demonstr at e atl eas tthatthe def endants houl d “r eas onabl y[have ] for es een” the occurr ence of a w i r e comm uni cat i on i n fur ther ance of the s cheme t o defr aud. 21 F. 3d at 40 ( quot i ng P er ei r a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 347 U . S. 1, 9 ( 1954) ) . W e then conc l uded thatthe re c o rd d id n o t s u p p o rt a f in d in g o f re a s o n a b le f

o re s e e a b ility, a n d re v e rs e d th e c o n v ic tio n . I d. at40- 42. O urdi s cus s i on i n B e n tz , l i ke those i n the ot her cases ci t ed b ydefe nse c o u n s e l, s ee , e. g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. H

as s on , 3 3 3 F .3 d 1 2 6 4 , 1 2 7 2 (1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ), c e rt. deni ed , 5 4 3 U .S . 1 1 7 3 (2 0 0 5 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. G oods on , 1 5 5 F . 3 d 9 6 3 , 9 6 6 (8th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), d o es n o t add ress the q u esti o n h ere : w h ethe r th e interstate n ature o f th e w ir e comm uni cat i on m us tbe r eas onabl yfor es eea bl e. 17 b u t th a t o p in io n w a s s u b s e q u e n tly v a c a te d , s ee 91 F. 3d 676 ( 5th C i r . 1996) , and has s i nce b e e n ig n o re d in f

a v o r o f th e m a jo ri ty v ie w , s ee R i char ds , 204 F. 3d at207. 5 M r . Hi l a r i o t e s t i f

i e d th a tM s . Ve r a s c a l l e d h i m a n d M r . Ve g a o n a tl e a s ttwo o c c a s io n s to a rr a n g e f

o r t ra n s f e r o f th e p a s s p o rt a n d tr a v e l o u t o f S t. T h o m a s . A r epr es ent at i ve of the phone c om panyconfi rm ed thatthes e ca l l s w er e r out ed out s i de of the te rr ito ri a l b o rd e rs o f

th e V ir g in Is la n d s , th ro u g h P u e rt o R ic o . See 18 U . S. C . § 10 ( “The t erm ‘ i nt er s t at e comm er ce’ , as us ed i n thi s t i t l e, i ncl udes comm er ce be tw een one St at e, T err i t ory , Poss es s i on, orthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a and a notherSt at e, T err i t ory , Poss es s i on, orthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a. ”) . T hi s evi dence demonstr at es us e of w i r e comm uni cat i ons i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce i n fur ther ance of a s cheme t o defr aud. T he convi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 1343 w i l l be uphel d.18 3. Pr oduct i on orpos s es s i on of fr audul enti m m i gr at i on paper s i s defi ned as a fe der al o f f e n se u n d e r 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 5 4 6 . T h a t se c tio n p ro v id e s th a t “[ w ]h o e v e r k n o w in g ly for ges , count er fei t s , al t er s , orfal s el ym akes any. . . documentpr es cr i bed bys t atut e or r egul at i on forentryi nt o oras evi dence of author i zed s t ayorempl oym enti n the U ni t ed St at es , or. . . pos s es s es . . . anys uch . . . document [, ] . . . know i ng i tt o be . . . pr ocur ed by f ra u d o r u n la w f

u lly o b ta in e d ,” is g u ilty o f a c ri m e . I

d. § 1 5 4 6 (a). N ei therpartydi s agr ees thata pas s por tw i th an A D I T s t amp i s a “doc um ent pr es cr i bed bys t atut e orr egul at i on forentryi nt o oras evi dence of author i zed s t ayor empl oym enti n the U ni t ed St at es . ” N ori s ther e anydoubtthatM s . V er as “pos s es s ed” the document , forthes e purpos es . T he s ol e ques t i on i s w hetherthe governm entpr es ent ed a d e q u a te p ro o f

th a t th e A D IT sta m p w a s f ra u d u len t. T he r ecor d i s s uffi ci enti n thi s r egar d. A l though the governm entpr es ent ed no d ir e c t e v id e n c e th a t th e s ta m p w a s in v a lid , it d id o f f e r a q u a n tu m o f

c ir c u m s ta n tia l p ro o f. See U ni t ed Stat es v. Si ngh , 222 F. 3d 6, 9- 10 ( 1s tC i r . 2000) ( not i ng thatci r cumst ant i al e v id e n c e m a ysu f

f ice to d e m o n stra te f

o rg e ry ). T h e sta m p w a s o b tain e d u n d e r e x tre m e ly s us pi ci ous ci r cumst ance s , out s i de off i ci al channe l s and fora l ar ge s um of ca s h. I tw as provided to an al i en w ho had enter ed the cou ntryi l l egall y . T he d efen dan t s di d n ot as k M r . H i l ar i o forbackgr ound i nform at i on orhave hi m s ubm i ta form al appl i cat i on, s om ethi ng thatw oul d nor m al l ybe expe ct ed i n thes e ci r cumst ance s . T he s t amp w asT hi s i s part i cul ar l ys us pi ci ous i n l i ghtof t es t i m onyfr om otheri m m i gr at i on 6 off i cers that M r. V ega w as onlyrar el yi nv olved i n the actual pr ocessi ng of tr aveler s. 19 a f f ix e d to th e p a ss p o rt o u tsid e o f h is p re se n c e , an d th e d o c u m e n t w a s re tu rn e d to s om eone w ho w as nei therr el at ed t o hi m noraff i l i at ed w i th i m m i gr at i on s ervi ces . H e w as i ns truct ed t o departthe t err i t oryata part i cul art i m e, w ear i ng part i cul arcl othes , and i n the p rese n ce o f a p arti cu lar of ficial, M r. V eg a. H e w as a ll o w ed to b o ard the p lane w ith M r. 6 V ega’ s i nt ervent i on, butw as notal l ow ed t o tr avel el s ew her e i n the U ni t ed St at es us i ng the pas s por t . A nd, s oon aft erM r . H i l ar i o w as arr es t ed, M s . V er as and M r . V ega s poke per s onal l yw i th M r . H i l ar i o’ s m other– i n a pr i vat e s ett i ng – and r eturned a s ubs t ant i al por t i on of the fe e thattheyhad t aken. T hes e ci r cumst ance s , and the i nfer ence s fl ow i ng ther efr om , coul d convi nce a r eas onabl e j ur orthatthe A D I T s t amp on M r . H i l ar i o’ s pas s por tw as fr audul ent . T he convi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 1546 w i l l be uphel d. 4. Feder al l aw pr ohi bi t s the gi vi ng oracc ept i ng of m oneyt o i nfl uence offi ci al act i ons . A “publ i c off

i ci al ” comm i t s the off

ens e of br i beryunder18 U . S. C . § 201( b) w hen he ors he “c orrupt l y. . . acc ept s . . . anythi ng of val ue per s onal l yorforanyother p e rs o n . . . in re tu rn f

o r . . . b e in g in f

lu e n c e d in th e p e rf

o rm a n c e o f

a n yo f f ic ia l a c t[ ,] . . . b e in g in f lu e n c e d to c o m m it o r a id in c o m m ittin g . . . a n yf ra u d . . . o n th e U n ite d S ta te s [ ,]20

or. . . bei ng i nduced t o do orom i tt o do anyacti n vi ol at i on of the off i ci al dutyof s uch offi ci al . ” I

d. D efe ns e couns el does notdi s agr ee, bas ed on a vi ew of the evi dence i n a l i ght favor abl e t o the governm ent , thatM r . V ega i s a “publ i c off i ci al ” w i thi n the meani ng of th e s ta tu te a n d th a t h e a c c e p te d m o n e yto a f f ix a n A D IT s ta m p to M r. H ila ri o ’s p a s s p o rt . R a th e r, co u n se l ar g u e s a g a in th a t th e e v id e n c e is in su f f icie n t to e sta b lish th a t M r. H ilario

“ w a s in e lig ib le f

o r [ th e s ta m p ].” T his argum ent fai l s for the reasons previousl ydis cussed. T he record supp ort s a fi ndi ng thatM r . H i l ar i o, as an al i en w ho had ent er ed the countryi l l egal l y , w as not ent i t l ed t o an A D I T s t amp and t hatM r . V ega f r audul ent l yaff

i xed the s t amp t o the pas s por t . T hi s act , and al l ow i ng M r . H i l ar i o t o pas s thr ough the cus t om s pr oces s w i th an in v a lid A D IT sta m p , co n stitu ted a v io latio n o f M r. V e g a ’s o f

f icia l d u ty , su f

f icie n t to s u s ta in a c o n v ic tio n f

o r b ri b e ry. See 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 0 1 (b)(2 )(C ). M s. V era s k n o w ing lyaide d an d ab ett ed M r. V eg a in th is sch em e. S h e is th ere fo re c ri m in a lly lia b le f

o r b ri b e ry. See 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 (a ); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. D i

xon , 658 F. 2d 181, 189 ( 3d C i r . 1981) ( fi ndi ng s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor tconvi ct i on forai di ng and abe t t i ng br i bery ) . T he convi ct i on under18 U . S. C . § 201( b) ( 2) w i l l be s us t ai ned. B. M s . V er as nextar gues thatthe governm entcr eat ed an i m perm i s s i bl e “va r i ance ” by p ro v in g tw o c o n sp ira c ies w h e n o n lyo n e w a s a lleg e d . T h e p ro se c u tio n is n o t p e rm itt e d to21

al l ege a s i ngl e cons pi r acyi n an i ndi ctm entand then off erevi dence of m ul t i pl e, in d e p e n d e n tly o p e ra tin g c o n s p ir a c ie s a t tr ia l. Kot t eakos v. U ni t ed Stat es , 328 U . S. 750, 7 6 5 (1 9 4 6 ); see al

so U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 280 F. 3d 318, 345 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . Such a var i ance betw een the pl eadi ngs and the pr oof betr ay s a mi s j oi nderof def

endant s and c a rrie s th e p o ss ib ili tyth a t an in d iv id u a l w h o is n o t in v o lv e d in th e lar g e r sc h e m e w ill n e v e rt h e le s s b e c o n v ic te d th e re o f. Kot t eakos , 3 2 8 U .S . a t 7 6 5 -7 4 , c itedin U ni t ed Stat es v. Lane , 4 7 4 U . S . 4 3 8 , 4 4 6 -47 (19 8 6 ). W e n e e d n o t d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re w a s a v a ria n c e in th is c a se b e c a u se , ev e n if e sta b lish e d , itd id n o t im p a c t M s. V e ra s. A v a ria n c e w ill p ro v e f a tal to c o n v ictio n o n lyif it c a u s e s s u b s ta n tia l p re ju d ic e to th e d e f

e n d a n t. U

n itedS ta tes v . P a d illa , 982 F. 2d 110, 114- 16 ( 3d C i r . 1992) . T hi s pr ej udi ce mostoft en ar i s es bythe “s pi l l over ” ef fec tof e v i d e n c e o f

o n e d e f e n d a n t ’ s g u i l tt o a n o th e rd e f e n d a n twh o wa s n o ti n v o l v e d i n th e s a me c o n s p ir a c y . E . g. , U

ni t ed Stat es v. C am i el , 6 8 9 F .2 d 3 1 , 3 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 2 ); see al so Kot t eakos , 3 2 8 U .S . at 7 7 4 (w a rn in g o f “ [ t]h e d a n g e rs o f

tra n sf e re n c e o f g u iltf ro m o n e to an o ther a cro ss the li n e se p ara ti n g co n sp ir ac ies”). T her e w as l i t t l e cha nce of s uch s pi l l overi n thi s cas e. T he onl yevi dence that w o u ld h a v e b e e n in tro d u c e d a s a re su lt o f th e a lleg e d v a ria n c e p e rta in e d to th e sc h e m e to s ecur e a f

r audul entI - 94. M s . V er as w as noti nvol ved i n thi s pl otand appa r ent l yhad no know l edge of

i t . N one of the w i tnes s es l i nked M s . V er as t o the s cheme ors ugges t ed that s he s houl d be hel d acc ount abl e fori t . A nd, i n l i ghtof the r el at i vel ys ubs t ant i al evi dence22

of M s . V er as ’ s part i ci pat i on i n the s cheme t o pr ovi de a f al s e A D I T s t amp t o M r . H i l ar i o, i ti s q u i t e u n l i k e l yth a tth e j u rywo u l d h a v e r e l i e d o n e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o th e I - 9 4 s c h e me t o c o n v i c th e ro f

c o n s p i r a c y. T he purpor t ed var i ance di d nots ubs t ant i al l ypr ej udi ce M s . V er as . I tthus does not pr ovi de a ba s i s t o overturn the j udgm entof convi ct i on. C. M s . V er as al s o cont ends thatthe D i s tr i ctC our terr ed i n deny i ng herm ot i on for se v e ra n c e . S h e a rg u e s s p e c if ica llyth a t in tro d u c tio n o f M r. V e ra s’s sta tem e n t, ev e n in its r edac t ed form , i nfr i nged on herr i ght s underthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e. Sever ance s houl d gener al l ybe gr ant ed i f the def endantw oul d be pr ej udi ced by in tr o d u c tio n o f

a n in c u lp a to ry p ri o r s ta te m e n t o f a c o d e f e n d a n t. Zaf

i r o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 0 6 U .S . 5 3 4 , 5 3 7 (1 9 9 3 ); see al so U ni t ed Stat es v. B al t er , 9 1 F . 3 d 4 2 7 , 4 3 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). S u c h a sta tem e n t is a d m iss ib le a g a in st th e c o d e f e n d a n t as a p a rtya d m iss io n , b u t it is n o t ad m iss ib le a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n t b e c a u se h e o r sh e h a s e n jo y e d n o o p p o rtu n ityto c ro s s -e x a m in e th e s p e a k e r. Zafi ro , 506 U . S. at539 ( ci t i ng B r ut on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 391 U . S. 123 ( 1968) ) . I ntr oduct i on of the s t at ementagai ns tthe def endantw oul d vi ol at e hi s or h e r r ig h ts u n d e r t h e C o n f ro n ta tio n C la u s e . B r ut on , 391 U . S. at135- 36. B u t se v e ra n c e is n o t re q u ire d if th e p re ju d ice to th e d e f

e n d a n t ca n b e su c c e ss f

u lly amel i or at ed. T hi s i s m os toft en ac compl i s hed, underthe l i ne of c as es fol l ow i ng B r ut on v. U ni t ed Stat es , 391 U . S. 123 ( 1968) , byr edac t i ng the s t at ementt o el i m i nat e al l r efe r ence sSee supra n o te 1 (d iagra m ing alt era ti o n s). 7 23 t o a coc ons pi r at orand byi s s ui ng a l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on advi s i ng the j urythati tm aynot c o n s id e r t h e s ta te m e n t a s e v id e n c e a g a in s t th e d e f e n d a n t. See , e. g. , R i cha rdson v. M arsh , 48 1 U . S . 20 0, 20 6-08 (19 87 ). R edacti on el i m i nates anydir ecti m pli cat i on of g uil tagainst th e d e f e n d a n t , a n d th e c a u t i o n a ryi n s tru c t i o n e n s u r e s th a tth e j u rywi l l n o td r a w a c o n te x tu a l in f

e re n c e o f g u ilt. I d. T hi s cur es anypr ej udi ce a r i s i ng fr om i ntr oduct i on of th e s ta te m e n t, o b v ia tin g th e n e e d f o r s e v e ra n c e . See Zafi ro , 5 0 6 U .S . at 5 3 9 ; see al so U nited S tates v. Q uint ero , 3 8 F . 3 d 1 3 1 7 , 1 3 4 1 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). T he r edac t i on i n thi s cas e s at i s fi ed B r ut on . T h e re v ise d sta tem e n t elim in a ted a ll r efe r ence s t o the exi s t ence of a c ocons pi r at or . I ts ugges t s obl i quel ythatM r . V er as 7 tr ans ferr ed moneyfr om M r . H i l ar i o t o anotherper s on, buti tdoes noti m pl ythatthe other per s on w as i nvol ved i n the cons pi r acyorw as a part i ci panti n the i l l egal act i vi ty . T he sta tem e n t th u s p ro v id e s n o b a sis o n w h ich a ju ro r m ig h t d ra w a d ire c t im p lica tio n o f g u ilt a g a in s t M s . V e ra s . See G r ay v. M ar yland , 5 2 3 U . S . 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 -89 , 1 9 2 -97 (19 9 8 ); R i char ds on , 481 U . S. 208- 11. A nyr es i dual r i s k of cont extual i m pl i cat i on of gui l tw as obvi at ed bythe D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s l im it ing instruction . T h e D istri ct C o u rtd ir ec ted th e jurythat itm u st co n side r M r. V e ra s’s a d m iss io n “ a s h is s tate m e n t, an d n o t th e sta tem e n t o f a n y o n e e lse , o r a ttribu ted to an y o n e e lse w h o is on tr ial . ” (A . 1 3 7 9 -80 . ) T h is i n stru cti o n , g iven at de fe n se c o u n sel’sI n a r el at ed vei n, M s . V er as al s o ar gues thats he w as pr ej udi ced bythe 8 in tr o d u c tio n o f

e v id e n c e re la tin g to th e o b s tru c tio n -o f -j u s tic e c h a rg e a g a in s t M r. V e g a . A g a in , this c laim is m e ritles s. T h e d e f e n d a n ts w e re p ro p e rlyjo in e d f o r p u rp o se s o f

trial, a n d th e ju ryw a s p ro p e rlyin stru c ted th a t, i n re so lv in g th e c h a rg e s a g a in st o n e d e f e n d a n t, i ts houl d notcons i derthe cha r ges agai ns tother s . I n l i ghtof thi s i ns truct i on, w hi ch the 24 r eques t , adequa t el yi nform ed the j urythati tm us tnotcons i derM r . V er as ’ s s t at ementas e v id e n c e a g a in s t M s . V e ra s . See R i char ds on , 481 U . S. 206- 08. R edac t i on of the s t at ementand i s s uance of the l i m i t i ng i ns truct i on amel i or at ed any pr ej udi ce thatM s . V er as m i ghthave s uffe r ed as a r es ul tof the j oi nttr i al . T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt th e re f

o re a c te d w ith in its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to s e v e r. See , e. g. , Zafi ro , 506 U . S. at539. D. M s. V e ra s n e x t as se rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt f a iled to in f

o rm th e ju ryth a t, notw i ths t andi ng the j oi nderof the def endant s fortr i al , the pr os ecut i on s t i l l bear s the b u rd e n o f

p ro v in g th e c h a rg e s a g a in s t e a c h d e f e n d a n t in d iv id u a lly. See , e. g. , Lane , 474 U . S . at45 0 n . 13 . T his cl ai m i s m eri t l ess. In both the p rel i m i naryand fi nal i nst ruct i on s, the D i stri ctC ou rtadv i sed t he jurythat, al tho ug h the defen dan t s w ere bei ng tri ed as a gr oup, “[i ] ti s [the j ury ’ s ] dutyt o gi ve s epar at e, per s onal , cons i der at i on t o the ca s e of e ach i ndi vi dual defe ndant , ” ana l y zi ng onl ythe evi dence admi t t ed aga i ns tthatdefe ndantand e x c l u d i n g e v i d e n c e “ a d mi t t e d s o l e l ya g a i n s ts o me o th e rd e f e n d a n to rd e f

e n d a n t s . ” ( A. 178, 1984- 85. ) T hes e i ns truct i ons pr oper l yadvi s ed the j uryt o gi ve i ndepende nt c o n sid e ra tio n to th e c h a rg e s a g a in st e a c h d e f e n d a n t. 8ju ry is p re s u m e d to h a v e f o llo w e d , s ee , e. g. , Lane , 474 U . S. at450 n. 13, i ti s cl earthat M s . V er as w as notpr ej udi ced bythe i ntr oduct i on of evi dence r el at i ng t o the obs truct i onof- j us t i ce c har ge. It is n o t cle a r f

ro m th e re c o rd u n d e r w h ich sta tu te th e p a ym e n ts to M r. H ilario 9 w er e author i zed. 25 E. Fi nal l y , M s . V er as compl ai ns thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m perm i s s i bl yl i m i t ed her r i ghtt o cr os s - exami ne M r . H i l ar i o r egar di ng paym ent s he had r ece i ved fr om the g o v e rn m e n t p e n d in g h is te s tim o n yin th is c a s e . See , e. g. , 28 U . S. C . §§ 530C ( b) ( 3) , 1821 ( pr ovi di ng forpaym ent s t o w i tnes s es ) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tr eas oned that , beca us e a 9 s t atut e pr ovi des forthes e paym ent s , theycannotbe us ed t o demonstr at e bi as on the partof th e w i tn e s s . I ti n s tru c t e d th e j u ry: [The] U ni t ed St at es C ongr es s has pas s ed a s t atut e thatal l ow s the paym ent forl odgi ng, food, tr ans por t at i on, s o l ong as he’ s a mat er i al w i tnes s . I t ’ s the l aw . A nd the funds ar e pai d bythe M ar s hal ’ s Ser vi ce. N ow , nothi ng i m pr opercan be i nferr ed fr om thatpr oces s , beca us e i t ’ s the pr oces s the p e r s o n i s a l l o we d t o f

o l l o w. (A . 4 5 4 .) W e n ee d n o t dec ide w h ethe r th is i n stru cti o n inf ri n g ed o n M s. V era s’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t o f

c o n f ro n ta tio n b e c a u s e , e v e n if in e rr o r, i t d id n o t a f

f e c t th e v e rd ic t. T he p roposed cross -exam i nati on w as not i ntended t o rebut anyaspectof the case against M s. V e ra s o r to e sta b lish a d e f e n se to th e c h a rg e s. R a th e r, itw a s in ten d e d m e re lyto demonstr at e thatM r . H i l ar i o w as a “f r i endl yw i tnes s , ” pr edi s pos ed t ow ar d the g o v e rn m e n t.26

T his factw ou l d h ave alr eadybeen cl ear t o the j ury . M r. H i l ari o w as cal l ed as a governm entw i tnes s . H e admi t t ed dur i ng hi s t es t i m onythathe w as cooper at i ng w i th l aw en fo rce m en t and h ad d iscu ssed the c ase w ith g o v ern m en t cou n sel. M o reo v er, th e jury w a s in f o rm e d , b yc o u n se l an d th e D istric t C o u rt, th a t M r. H ilario w a s re c e iv in g p a ym e n ts fro m the g o v ern m en t pen d ing h is t esti m o n y . T h e juryw as w ell aw are o f M r. H il ario’s aff i l i at i on w i th the governm entand hi s pos s i bl e bi as . T he i ns truct i on bythe D i s tr i ct C o u r tw o u l d n o th a v e a f f e c t e d i t s a s s e s s m e n to f

h i s c r e d i b i l i ty. T he li m i t at i on on defe nse cou nsel ’s cross -exam i nati on , i f err or, w as harm l ess b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. C handl er , 3 2 6 F . 3 d 2 1 0 , 2 2 2 -23 (3d C ir . 2003) ( ci t i ng D e la w a re v . V a n A rs da ll , 475 U . S. 673, 684 ( 1986) ) . T he j udgm entof convi ct i on w i l l notbe overturned on thi s gr ound. III . T he r ecor d i n thi s cas e s uppor t s the fi ndi ng thatM s . V er as engage d i n a cons pi r acy t o pr ovi de a f

r audul entpas s por ts t amp for a n i l l egal al i en. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi d not abus e i t s di s cr et i on i n r efus i ng t o s everhertr i al fr om thos e of he rcocons pi r at or s and pr oper l yi ns truct ed the j uryon i t s obl i gat i on t o cons i derthe evi dence agai ns teac h defe nd ant i nd i vidual l y . A nyerr or i n li m i t i ng defe nse cou nsel ’s ri gh tof crossexami nat i on i s , i n l i ghtof the s ubs t ant i al evi dence agai ns tM s . V er as , pr oper l ycons i der ed harm l ess. T he j udgm entof the D i s tr i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.