[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-14481

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00077-ACC-GJK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ADAM BOSWELL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(July 12, 2013)

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Adam Blake Boswell appeals his convictions for six counts of wire fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and two counts of transportation of property 

obtained through fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. He presents one issue: 

whether the District Court committed plain error in failing to enter a judgment of 

acquittal sua sponte at the close of all the evidence. 

Ordinarily, we review de novo whether sufficient evidence supports a 

conviction, drawing all reasonable factual inferences from the evidence in favor of 

the verdict. United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 840 (11th Cir. 2009). 

Evidence is sufficient if a reasonable trier of fact could find that it established guilt 

beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. However, where, as here, the defendant 

unsuccessfully moves for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s

case in chief, then presents evidence in his own defense and thereafter fails to 

renew the motion for judgment of acquittal, we will reverse his conviction only if 

there is a “manifest miscarriage of justice,” such that “the evidence on a key 

element of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” United 

States v. Schier, 438 F.3d 1104, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). 

Moreover, where the defendant raises a sufficiency argument on appeal that was 

not specifically raised below, we review that issue for plain error. United States v. 

Joseph, 709 F.3d 1082, 1103 (11th Cir. 2013). Plain error is: (1) an error; (2) that 

is plain; and (3) affects substantial rights; but only if (4) the error seriously affects 

Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 5 
3

the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. 

Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007). 

Wire fraud is a crime which punishes anyone who:

having devised or intending to devise any scheme or 

artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by 

means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or 

promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means 

of wire . . . communication in interstate or foreign 

commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or 

sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or 

artifice . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 1343. The elements of wire fraud are thus: (1) intentional 

participation in a scheme to defraud, and (2) the use of interstate wires in 

furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th 

Cir. 2009). 

It is also illegal for a person to “transport[], transmit[], or transfer[] in 

interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or 

money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, 

converted or taken by fraud . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Even though it is not 

explicitly stated in the statute, it is also a violation of § 2314 to cause the 

transportation of a qualifying good or item. United States v. Block, 755 F.2d 770, 

774 (11th Cir. 1985).

The fraud underpinning Boswell’s convictions in this case occurred through 

his participation on eBay. In March 2008, eBay user “goingfast3,” which was 

Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 5 
4

registered to Boswell, listed 110 groups of Krugerrand gold coins for auction. 

Boswell received payment from the auction winners and spent their money, but he 

did not send them the coins. 

In appealing his convictions for the § 2314 offenses, Boswell only argues 

that there was insufficient evidence linking him to the fraud. He correctly observes 

that none of his victims saw him in person. He ignores, however, the evidence that 

he used the proceeds of the fraud to purchase real estate. Since the jury was 

entitled to rely on such evidence, he has not demonstrated that a manifest 

miscarriage of justice would result if we affirmed § 2314 convictions.

As to the § 1343 wire fraud offenses, Boswell argues, for the first time on 

appeal, that there was not enough evidence to establish that he intended to defraud

the victims, because the victims never actually sent him any money. The act 

constituting the wire fraud was Boswell’s inducement of the victims’ electronic 

bids through a fraudulent listing on eBay, a website where users can list items for 

auction and other users can place electronic bids on those items. By listing South 

African gold Krugerrands for auction, Boswell solicited bids, and the high bidder 

expected to receive the coins. The fact that Boswell did not have the coins, or, if 

he did, that he did not intend to send the coins to the victims, was established by 

the testimony and evidence of numerous other victims who bid on Boswell’s eBay 

auctions during the same time period. The fact that one witness testified that he 

Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 4 of 5 
5

received Krugerrands bought from Boswell in an eBay auction a month earlier 

failed to establish that the jury’s verdicts were not based upon inferences 

reasonably drawn from the evidence. In sum, sustaining the § 1342 convictions 

would not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 5 of 5