# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 4- 38 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ant ho ny Davi s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 18 , 20 15 Fil ed : Fe br

ua ry 10 , 20 16

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re MUR PHY, BENTON, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

A jury fo un d Ant ho ny Dav is gu il ty of em be zzl in g un io n fu nd s in vi ol at io n of
29 U.S.C. §5 01 (c). He ap pe al s, at ta ck in g th e su ffi c i e n cy of th e ev id en ce an d
cl ai m in g th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve su bm it te d on e of hi s pr op os ed jury 1

The Hon or ab le Caro l E. Ja ck so n, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.in st ru ct io ns , im pr op erl y ad m it te d ch eck s an d in vo ic es in to ev id en ce, an d pl aced ti m e

co ns tra in ts on th e jury th at vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to a fai r tri al

. Hav in g juri sd ic ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. §1 29 1, t hi s co ur t af fir m s.

Dav is
, a Uni te d St at es Po st al Em pl oyee, was Pres id en t of th e Nati on al Po st al
Mai l Han dl ers Uni on , Loc al 31 4. He ha d au th or it y to m ak e di sb ur se m en ts fo r Loc al
31 4. Acco rd in g to th e ev id en ce, Dav is crea te d in vo ic es fro m (m os tl y no n- ex is te nt )
cl ean in g, cat eri ng , m ai nt en an ce, an d co m pu te r-eq ui pm en t co m

pa ni es

. He al so rei m bu rs ed hi m se lf fo r h o t e l t rav el ex pe ns es , aft er Loc al 31 4 ha d di rect ly pa id th e ho te l bi ll

. The un au th or iz ed rei m bu rs em en ts to ta l $4 0,6 59 .07

. The co ur t ad m it te d
ch eck s an d in vo ic e s in to ev id en ce, so m e at ta ch ed to a rei m bu rs em en t fo rm , whi le

ot he rs were n ot

.

The tri al be ga n wit h 12 juro rs an d on e al te rn at e. Tria l la st ed lo ng er th an th e

ex pe ct ed en d on Fri da y , Sep te m be r 5. One juro r was ex cu se d at th e en d of Fri da y du e
to ot he r ob li ga ti on s. Ano th er juro r lo st a fam il y m em be r ov er th e week en d. Rat he r th an pr oc eed wit h o n l y 11 juro rs , th e co ur t po st po ne d th e tri al un ti l Thu rs da y , Sep te m be r 11

. Dav is di d no t ob

ject. Afte r th e cl os e of th e ev id en ce, Dav is m ov ed
fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al
, whi ch was de n i e d

. Th e d is tri ct co ur t al so de ni ed hi s
pr op os ed Ju ry

Ins tru ct io n 1 3.

I.

Th i s c o ur t rev ie ws th e de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al de no vo ,

“ vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e gu il ty ve rd ic t, reso lv in g all

ev id en ti ary co nf

li ct s in fav or of th e go ve rn m en t , an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le
in fere nc es su pp or te d by t he ev id en ce.” Unit ed Sta te s v. Thom

ps on , 5 33 F.3 d 96 4,
97 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Thi s co ur t wil l ov ert ur n a jury ve rd ic t on ly if “ no reas on ab le jury

co ul d h av e fo un d t he de fen da nt gu il ty bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

.

-2

-Dav is was ch arg ed wit h un la wfu ll y an d wil lfu ll y em be zzl in g fu nd s fro m Loc al
31 4, in vi ol at io n of 29 U.S.C. § 50 1( c). A co nv ic ti on un de r § 50 1( c) req ui res m is us e of un io n fu nd s w i t h f

r a u d ul en t in te nt

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Wel ch , 7 28 F.2 d 11 13
, 11 16 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (“ To pr ov e ‘w il lfu ll ne ss ’ un de r se ct io n 50 1( c), th e go ve rn m en t

m us t sh ow th at th e un io n of fic ia ls po ss es se d frau du le nt or cri m in al in te nt to de pr iv e th e un io n of it s fu nd s.”)

. Dav is co nt en ds th e go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e th at hi s
ap pr op ria ti on of m on ey “ was un au th or iz ed or th at he di d no t ha ve a go od fai th be li ef
th at it ha d be en au t h o r i z e d .” Howev er, ne it he r a la ck of un io n au th or iz at io n no r a la ck of go od fai th be li ef th at th e ex pe nd it ur e was fo r th e le gi ti m at e be ne fit o f th e Uni on is an es se nt ia l el em en t of a se ct io n 50 1( c) vi ol at io n. Se e U n i t e d S ta te s v. Thor da rs on , 64 6 F .2d 13 23 , 13 35 (9t h C ir. 1 98 1)

.

The re was s u f

fic ie nt ev id en ce fo r th e jury to co nc lu de th at Dav is ha d th e frau du le nt in te nt to de pr iv e Loc al 31 4 of it s m on ey , fu nd s, pr op ert y , or ot he r as se ts

. True
, a co -wo rk er te st ifi ed to a “ co m m on pr act ic e” fo r un io n em pl oyees to crea te in vo ic es i n o r de r to be rei m bu rs ed fo r ou t-o f-p oc ke t cas h ex pe nd it ur es

. To th e

co nt rary, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d ev id en ce of 56 ti mes , th at fo r se rv ic es ne ve r

ren de red to Loc al 31 4, Davi s recei ve d paym en t for fi ct it io us in vo ic es

. The Loc al ’s

tre as ur er te st ifi ed th at , be gi nn in g in 20 08
, Dav is ’s rei m bu rs em en t req ue st s in crea se d.
On hi s co m

pu te r Dav is ha d m

ul ti pl e te m

pl at es fo r fic ti ti ou s in vo ic es

. Thre e

co m pa ni es te st ifi ed th at , al th ou gh th ey pr ov id ed se rv ic es to Loc al 31 4, th e in vo ic es Dav is su bm it te d fro m th em were fic ti ti ou s, fo r se rv ic es ne ve r pe rfo rm ed

. Wi th

res pe ct to cl ean in g ex pe ns es , m an y Loc al 31 4 m em be rs cl ean ed th e un io n ha ll

. Alt ho ug h Dav is ’s br ot he r te st ifi ed th at he cl ean ed an d “ m ad e $7 5 he re, $1 00 he re an d
ch an ge ,” th e rei m

bu rs em en t fo rm s su bm it te d by Dav is in di cat ed cl ean in g pa y m en ts fo r far grea te r am ou nt s. Dav is al so te st ifi ed th at th e da te on th e in vo ic es he crea te d
di d no t al way s co rres po nd to th e da te of th e al le ge d se rv ic e. Unit ed St at es v. Plen ty Chi ef
, 56 1 F.3 d 84 6, 85 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ It is th e so le pr ov in ce of th e jury to weig h
th e cred ib il it y of a wit ne ss .”). Viewi ng th e ev id en ce m os t fav or ab ly t o th e ve rd ic t,

-3

-an d acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es , th e di st ric t co ur t pr op e r l y de ni ed Dav is ’s

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

II.

At tri al
, Dav is ob

jecte d to In st ru ct io n 13 de fin in g “ un au th or iz ed ex pe nd it ur e.”
He pr op os ed la ng ua ge in cl ud in g th e req ui rem en t th at he “ la ck ed a go od fai th be li ef
th at th e ex pe nd it ur e was fo r th e le gi ti m at e be ne fit of th e Uni on .” The co ur t reject ed
Dav is ’s lan gu ag e.

Thi s co ur t rev ie ws a di st ric t co ur t’s reject io n of a de f e n d a n t ’s pr op os ed jury
in st ru ct io n fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Unit ed St at es v. Ro bi ns on , 78 1 F.3 d 45 3, 46 2- 63 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). Thi s co ur t affi rm s if th e in st ru ct io ns “ fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d
th e is su es to th e jury.” Unit ed St at es v. Ha ns en , 79 1 F.3 d 86 3, 87 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ).

“ A c on vi c t i o n wil l be rev ers ed ba se d on a di st ric t co ur t’s in st ru ct io na l erro r as to a
pa rti cu la r in st ru ct io n on ly up on a fin di ng of pr ejud ic e to th e pa rti es .” Unit ed St at es v. Br ed e , 47 7 F .3d 64 2, 6 43 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

The rel ev an t p art of t he co ur t’s i ns tru ct io n re ad :

If y ou fin d th e de fen da nt ’s ex pe nd it ur e

. . . was un au th or iz ed an d th at th e de fen da nt kn ew t h e e x pe nd it ur e was un au th or iz ed
, th en y ou

m ay co ns id er th is as ev id en ce of th e de fen da nt ’s frau du le nt in te nt to de pr iv e Nati on al Po st al Mai l Han dl ers Uni on , Loca l 31 4 of the m on ey al le ge d i n t he Ind ic tm en t. An un au th or iz ed ex pe n d i t u re is on e whi ch is do ne wit ho ut th e pe rm is si on of th e un io n an d it s m e m be rs as a who le ev en if it is
ap pr ov ed by a su pe rio r un io n of fic ia l or gr ou p of of

fic ia ls

. Th a t is
, pe rm is si on of th e un io n is la ck in g if th e ex pe nd it ur e is ou ts id e th e sc op e of th e fi du ci ary tru st pl aced in a de fen da nt by the un io n.

-4

-Leav in g th e fir st p a r a gr ap h la rg el y in ta ct , Dav is pr op os ed de le ti ng la ng ua ge

in th e se co nd pa rag rap h a nd su bs ti tu ti ng th e it al ic iz ed word s:

An un au th or iz ed ex pe nd i t u r e is on e whi ch is do ne wit ho ut th e pe rm is si on of th e Uni on an d it s m em be rs as a who le

. Tha t is
, pe rm is si on of th e Uni on is l a c k i n g i f th e ex pe nd it ur e is ou ts id e th e sc op e of th e fid uc ia ry tru st pl a c ed in th e Defen da nt by th e Uni on as a who le
, th e Defe nd an t a c t e d wi th fr au du le nt in te nt , a nd la cked a go od fa it h be li ef th at th e exp en di tu re wa s f

or th e le gi ti mat e b en ef

it of th e Uni on

.

The di st ric t co ur t reject ed Dav is ’s “ go od fai th ” la ng ua ge be cau se , “ in

. . . de te rm in in g hi s frau du le nt in te nt , th e ju r y c a n co ns id er whe th er th e de fen da nt kn ew th at th e

ex pe nd it ur e was au th or iz ed —o r rat he r kn ew it was u na ut ho riz ed .”

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t abu se it s di sc ret io n in reject in g Davi s’s ins tru ct io n. His wou ld req ui re a la ck of go od fai th be li ef be fo re an ex pe nd it ur e is un au th or iz ed

. Thi s wou ld de feat th e reas on fo r th e in st ru ct io n— al lo win g th e jury to co ns id er un io n

au th or iz at io n to de te rm in e Dav is ’s frau du le nt in te nt

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Ca nt re ll
, 99 9 F.2 d 12 90
, 12 92 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ) (“ [U]nio n au th or iz at io n is ev id en ce be ari ng on ‘fraud ul en t in te nt .’ ”). Fu rth er, a la ck of a go od fai th be li ef th at th e ex pe nd it ur e was fo r th e le gi ti m at e be ne fit of th e Uni on is no t an es se nt ia l el em en t of a se ct io n 50 1( c)
vi ol at io n. Thor da rs on , 64 6 F.2 d at 13 34

. Se e ge ne ra ll y Ca nt re ll
, 99 9 F.2 d at 12 92 ( “[L ]ack of un io n au th or iz at io n is no t ne ces sa ril y an es se nt ia l el em en t of a se ct io n 50 1( c) vi ol at io n.” ). The in st ru ct io n fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly su bm it te d th e is su es to th e jury.

III.

Dav is co nt en ds th e di st ric t co ur t im pr op erl y ad mi t t e d i rrel ev an t ch eck s an d
in vo ic es in to ev id en ce. Thi s co ur t rev ie ws a di st ric t co ur t’s ru l i n g on th e ad m is si bi li ty of ev id en ce fo r ab us e of di sc ret io n. Unit ed St at es v. Thet fo rd
, 80 6 F.3 d

-5

-44 2, 44 6 (8t h Cir. 20 15 ). Evi de nc e is rel ev an t i f “ (a) i t h as an y ten de nc y to m ak e a fact m or e o r le ss pro ba bl e th an it wou ld be wit ho ut th e ev id en ce; an d (b ) th e fac t i s of co ns eq ue nc e in de te rm in in g t he act io n.” Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 1

.

Thro ug ho ut tri al
, th e co ur t ad m it te d rei m bu rs em en t fo rm s an d th e at ta ch ed
fic ti ti ou s in vo ic es , al on g wit h th e co rres po nd in g Loc al ch eck s is su ed to Dav is

. Oth er ch eck s do no t hav e a co rres po nd in g reim bu rs em en t form

. Howev er, t he m em o li ne

on t h e se ch eck s refe ren ce id en ti cal or si m il ar se rv ic es as on th e fic ti ti ou s rei m bu rs em en t fo rm s. The co ur t al so ad m it t e d u n

- su bm it te d in vo ic es no t at ta ch ed

to a rei m bu rs em en t fo rm , whi ch were fo un d i n Dav is ’s veh ic le an d o ffi ce.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s d i s c r e t io n in ad m it ti ng th es e ch eck s an d
in vo ic es

. The ch eck s sh ow th at Loc al 31 4 of t e n pa id Dav is fo r id en ti cal se rv ic es ,

m ak in g it m or e pr o b a b l e th at th e se rv ic es were ne ve r ren de red

. The un -s ub m it te d
in vo ic es fro m no n- ex is te nt ve nd or s m ak e it m or e li ke ly th at Dav is pr ov id ed th e ot he r fic ti ti ou s i nv oi ces to Loca l 3 14

.

IV.

Dav is arg ue s th at th e th ree- da y tri al de la y un fai rly pr ejud ic ed hi m

. Thi s co ur t

rev ie ws th is cl ai m fo r pl ai n erro r. Fed. R. Crim. P. 52 (b) (“ A pl ai n erro r th at affe ct s

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s m ay be co ns id ered ev en th ou gh it was no t br ou gh t to th e co ur t’s

at te nt io n.” ). Dav is m

us t s h o w , ( 1 ) an erro r, (2 ) th at was pl ai n, (3 ) affe ct in g

su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d (4 ) se rio us ly affe ct in g th e fai rn es s, in te g r i t y o r pu bl ic

r ep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs

. Unit ed St at es v. Ola no , 50 7 U.S. 72 5, 73 1

- 3 6 (1 99 3)

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de la y in g th e tri al by th ree da y s to en su re a fu ll
12 -m em be r jury. The ev id en ce re mai ni ng was m in im al
, wit h li tt le ch an ce th e tri al

wou ld la st in to th e th ird week (as Dav is sp ecu l a t es ). Befo re th e de la y , th e co ur t

-6

-in st ru ct ed th e juro rs no t to di sc us s th e cas e wit h an y bo dy, no t to co nd uc t an y in de pe nd en t in ve st ig at io n, an d to ke ep an op en m in d un ti l th e en d of tri al

. Dav is was

no t un fai rly pr ejud ic ed by th e sh or t de la y

. Se e Unit ed St at es v. Thom as , 45 1 F.3 d
54 3, 54 6- 47 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (fi nd in g ob jecte d- to 24 -d ay co ntinuan ce was no t an ab us e of di sc ret io n aft er de fen da nt de cl in ed to pr oc eed wit h on ly el ev en juro rs , si nc e co ur t

was face d wit h se ve ral em erg en ci es a n d co nf li ct s, an d in st ru ct ed th e juro rs no t to di sc us s t he cas e an d k eep an op en m in d u nt il th e cas e co nc lu de d)

.

* * * * * * *

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-