NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______________

No. 22-2856

______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MICHAEL CHEFF,

Appellant

______________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of New Jersey

(Civil Action No. 2-20-cr-00209-01)

U.S. District Judge: Honorable Katharine S. Hayden

_________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

on June 9, 2023

Before: HARDIMAN, AMBRO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: October 13, 2023)

______________

OPINION*

______________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and under I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute 

binding precedent.
2

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Michael Cheff was convicted of participating in a conspiracy 

to deprive individuals of their constitutional rights. He now appeals the jury’s guilty 

verdict. We will affirm. 

I.

Between 2016 and 2018, a group of five Paterson, New Jersey police officers, 

nicknamed the Robbery Squad, violated the constitutional rights of numerous civilians, 

detaining them without reasonable suspicion, stealing money from them, and subjecting 

them to unjustified and excessive force. Each was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, 

federal felony offenses for this conduct. Cheff was not one of the members of the 

Robbery Squad. Instead, he was the members’ sergeant and supervisor. At trial, the jury 

heard testimony about Cheff’s involvement in the overall conspiracy, including that

Cheff used his position as sergeant to protect the Robbery Squad from scrutiny and allow 

them to continue to steal. Members of the Robbery Squad testified that they considered 

Cheff “part of the team” and that “he was going to take care of us, look out after us, we 

won’t get in trouble as long as he’s our supervisor.”1

Cheff taught the Robbery Squad how to falsify reports to give the appearance of 

legitimate police work, and he provided the necessary signoffs on that fraudulent 

paperwork. When approving reports of drug arrests, Cheff did not question whether 

money was recovered. Members of the Robbery Squad specifically went to Cheff to get 

1 A901, 998.
3

reports signed off instead of their other supervisor, who they described as “too by the 

book.”2

 Additionally, Cheff periodically gave the officers a “heads up” that someone had 

complained about them, or that Internal Affairs might be investigating them, indicating 

that they should take a break from their illegal activities.3

 The officers would consult 

Cheff after receiving an Internal Affairs complaint, and Cheff would make sure that their 

responses all matched. Cheff regularly accepted cash from the Robbery Squad given to 

him with the coded phrases “lunch money” or “enjoy your dinner.”4

 In November of

2017, Cheff himself stole over two thousand dollars during a search. He was present 

when three members of the Robbery Squad lied to gain access to a person’s home. 

Inside, Cheff found over two thousand dollars in a safe and pocketed most of it, telling an 

officer to tag a small portion. Cheff was arrested and charged with one count of 

conspiring to deprive persons of their constitutional rights and one count of falsifying a 

record. After a trial, a jury convicted him of both counts, and he was sentenced to 33 

months imprisonment. Cheff appeals, arguing that the Government failed to provide 

sufficient evidence that he was a member of the conspiracy. 

II.

The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2 A1012. 

3 A730. 

4

A753, 1001.
4

III.

Cheff contends that the Government did not establish that he shared a unity of 

purpose with the Robbery Squad or that he intended to accomplish the conspiracy’s 

illegal objects. Cheff asserts that, at worst, he committed illegal acts for his own benefit 

and failed to adequately supervise the Robbery Squad.

The standard of review in a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge is “highly 

deferential.”5 “We review the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to 

determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt[ ] beyond a 

reasonable doubt.”6 When facts support conflicting inferences, we presume that the 

factfinder resolved them in favor of the prosecution and defer to that resolution.7

Cheff’s appeal only challenges his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 241, which makes 

it a crime for “two or more persons [to] conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate 

any person . . . in the free exercise” of his constitutional rights.8

 To prove a conspiracy, 

the Government must establish: “(1) a shared unity of purpose between the alleged 

conspirators; (2) an intent to achieve a common goal; and (3) an agreement to work 

5 United States v. Bailey, 840 F.3d 99, 109 (3d Cir. 2016). 6 United States v. Caraballo-Rodriguez, 726 F.3d 418, 430 (3d Cir. 2013) (en banc) 

(quoting United States v. Brodie, 403 F.3d 123, 133 (3d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 7 Bailey, 840 F.3d at 109.

8 18 U.S.C. § 241. 
5

together toward that goal.”9 The Government may prove a conspiracy “entirely by 

circumstantial evidence.”10 

The evidence in this case was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a 

reasonable doubt that Cheff was a member of the conspiracy. Cheff was the supervisor 

of the Robbery Squad while its members were committing illegal acts. There was a 

demonstrated level of mutual trust between Cheff and the members, who considered him

to be “part of the team” and understood that he would look out for them.11 Members of 

the Robbery Squad specifically went to Cheff to get reports signed off instead of their 

other supervisor. And Cheff accepted cuts of stolen money from patrol officers and 

maintained an established method of payment with the Robbery Squad.

Further, Cheff assisted the Robbery Squad in evading the suspicion of Internal 

Affairs by alerting members when Internal Affairs became suspicious. Cheff contends 

that he simply had a laissez-faire attitude toward the actions of the Robbery Squad, but 

that there was no agreement to work toward a common goal. However, evidence of a 

concerted cover-up suggests that crimes “were undertaken as part of an agreement, as 

opposed to having been random, uncoordinated acts.”12 

Cheff also participated in the illegal acts himself in November 2017. He argues 

that conflicting testimony about the events of that day weaken the Government’s 

9 Bailey, 840 F.3d at 108. 10 United States v. Smith, 294 F.3d 473, 477 (3d Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Gibbs, 

190 F.3d 188, 197 (3d Cir. 1999)). 

11 A1045.

12 Smith, 294 F.3d at 479. 
6

position. But we presume that the jury resolved any conflict in favor of the prosecution 

and defer to that resolution.13

IV.

For the reasons stated above, we will affirm Cheff’s conviction.

13 Bailey, 840 F.3d at 109.