FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L10, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 69 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 0- cr-0 00 50 -RH-WCS-2

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROBERT NIXON, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 10 , 20 12 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, ED MONDSON an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Ro be rt Ni xo n app eal s h is co nv ic ti on s an d s en te nc es forco ns pi racy to s te al

orm is ap pl y

fun ds fro m

anorg an iz at io n t ha t re cei ve s fe de ral ass is ta nc e an d t o co m m itwire frau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 3 71 , 13 49 , 66 6( a)(1 )(A), an d 13 43 ; s te al in g o r m is ap pl y in g fu nd s fr om anorg an iz at io n t ha t re cei ve s fe de ral as si st an ce, an d a id in g andab et ti ng , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 66 6( a)(1 )(A) an d 2; an d m is ap pl y in g fu nd s as a cred itun io n e m pl oyee, andaid in g andab et ti ng , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 65 7 a nd2. Onap pe al , Nix onarg ue s t ha t the ev id en ce at tri al was i ns uf

fic ie ntto co nv ic t h im

of t he cri m es ch arg ed . Nix onals o a rg ue s t ha t th e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y

erre d a t s en te nc in g i n c al cu la ti ng a reas on ab le lo ss am ou ntun de r U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 ). 1 I. The S uffi ci ency of t he Ev id ence Nix on arg ue s tha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin de nyin g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t Nix on attempts to adopt by ref ere nce, w ithout further spec ification, all portions of the 1 brief of his codefe ndant Eug ene T elfa ir, filed in appe al number 11- 10627. Telfa ir raise s an additional issue reg ardingthe two-leve l enhanc ement he r ece ived at sente ncingpursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for

abuse of a position of trust. Nix on’s attempt to adopt by ref ere nce T elfa ir’s sentenc ing e nhance ment argument fails bec ause the blanket stateme nt is not sufficiently detailed to comply with our rules re g ardingadoptinganother party ’s brief

. See11th Cir. R. 28-1(f) (re quiring“a statement in detail” of the portions of the brie f that ar e adopte d). The a doption also fails bec ause “ the deter

mination of whether

a def endant oc cupied a

position of trust is extremely fac t sensitive.” United States v. Ghe rtler , 605 F.3d 1256, 1264 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). Nix on also mentions that the sentenc ing c ourt err ed in conc luding that he obstructed justice through his testimony , but he fa ils to m ake a ny argument or provide a

ny citation to authority as to the issue. Ac cording ly , Nix on has aba ndoned this issue. Rowe v. Sc hreiber , 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 ( 11th Cir. 1998) (re fusingto rea ch an issue me ntioned in passing in the brief filed by counsel be cause the issue had no supportingargument or discussion). 2of

acqui tt al , andth atth e ev id en ce attri al was i ns uf fic ie ntto co nv ic t h im

of any of th e cri m es ch arg ed , bec au se th e ev id en ce s ho wedth athi s al le ge d c o- co ns pi rat or , Eug en e Tel fai r, ha d aco nt ractforco ns ul ti ng servi ces with F lo rid a Agr ic ul tu ral an d M ech an ic al Uni ve rs it y (“ FAMU”) . Nix on ass ert s g en eral ly tha t, p ur su an t t o th e te rm s o f th e co ns ul ti ng servi ces ag reem en t (“ CSA”) Telfa ir h adwith F AMU, Telf ai r was en ti tl edto $1 50 ,00 0.0 0 t ha t was at i ss ue in th e cas e. So , Nix on arg ue s, as a m at te r of

law, h e an d Tel fai r can no t b e co nv ic te d o f st eal in g o r co ns pi rin g t o s te al m on ey th atis lawf

ul ly T el fai r’s, whi ch Telfa ir s haredwith Nix on . Nix on ass ert s t ha t, al th ou gh FAMU rem it te d t he $1 50 ,00 0.0 0 c he ckat is su e to FAMU Fed eral Cred itUni on (“ FAMU FCU” ), th e ch eckwas i nt en de d fo r Telf ai r pu rs ua ntto th e CSA, an d Tel fai r ha d t he au th or it y as P res id en t o f FAMU FCU t o n eg ot ia te th e ch eck . W e rev ie w de no vo th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , andin rev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce u nd erl y in g aco nv ic ti on , we con si de r th e ev id en ce “ in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, wi th all in fere nc es an d cred ib il it y

ch oi ces drawn i n t he go ve rn m en t’s fa vo r.” Uni te d Sta tes v. DuBos e , 59 8 F .3d72 6, 7 29 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . The s ta nd ardof r ev ie w fo r su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce i s wh ethe r a rea so nabl e tr ie r of factco ul d fi ndth at th e ev id en ce es tabl is he d g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t. Uni te d Sta tes v. 3Godin ez , 92 2 F .2d75 2, 7 55 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ). “ The qu es ti onis whethe r rea so nabl e

m in ds co uld

have fou ndgu il t b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t, n otwhet he r rea so nabl e m in ds mus t

ha ve fou ndgu il t b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ba co n , 59 8 F .3d77 2, 7 75 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (quo ta ti on an d a lt erat io n o m it te d) . Acco rd in gl y , It i s n otne ces sa ry

forth e ev id en ce t o e xc lu de ev ery reas on ab le hypo th es is of i nn oc en ce o r be who ll y in co ns is te ntwith e ve ry co nc lu si on ex cep t tha t o f gu il t . . . . The jury is fr ee t o c ho os e be twee n o r am on g t he reas on ab le co nc lu si on s t o b e drawnfro m th e ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l, an d t he co urt m us t ac cep t al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y de te rm in at io ns m ad e b y

th e jury. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ga rc ia , 44 7 F .3d13 27 , 13 34 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (quo ta ti on s om it te d) . W e are “bo un d b y

th e jury’ s cr ed ib il it y

ch oi ces , andby its reject io n o f th e in fere nc es rai se d b y

th e d efen da nt .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Pet er s , 40 3 F .3d12 63 , 12 68 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Add it io na ll y , “ whe n ade fen da nttak es th e st an d i n acri m in al cas e an d e xp os es hi s d em ean orto th e jury, the jury m ay m ak e ad ve rs e de te rm in at io ns ab ou t h is cred ib il it y an d re ject h is ex pl an at io n a s a c om pl et e fab ric at io n.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Vazq ue z , 53 F.3d12 16 , 12 25 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). Fu rth erm or e, we ha ve he ldth atif t he jury do es no t b el ie ve th e d efen da nt ’s ver si on of ev en ts , th e st at em en ts m ad e b y th e d efen da ntm ay

be co ns id eredby the jury as

4subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f th e d efen dant ’s gu il t, atlea stwher e so m e co rro bo rat iv e

ev id en ce ex is ts forth e ch arg edoff en se . Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 53 F.3d31 2, 3 14 - 15 (11 thCir . 19 95 ). “ Thi s ru le ap pl ie s wi th sp eci al for ce wh ere t he ele m en ts to be pr ov edfora co nv ic ti onin cl ud e h ig hl y subjec ti ve ele m en ts : fo r ex am pl e, th e de fen da nt ’s in te ntor kno wled ge . . . .” Id. Inord er t o c on vi ctso m eo ne of e ng ag in g i n aco ns pi racy, the go ve rn m en t m us t p ro ve : “ 1) th e ex is te nc e o f anag reem en t t o a ch ie ve anun la wfu l o bjec ti ve , 2) [th e d efen da nt ’s] kn owi ng an d v ol un tary pa rti ci pa ti on in th e ag reem en t, an d 3) th e co m

m is si on of an a ctin furth eran ce o f th e ag reem en t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ta mpa s , 49 3 F .3d12 91 , 12 98 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ); 1 8 U.S.C. § 37 1. “ The kn owl ed ge requi rem en t i s s at is fie d wh enth e [g ]ove rn m en t s ho ws a d efen da nt ’s awaren es s o f th e es se nt ia l n atur e o f th e co ns pi racy.” Uni te d Sta tes v. N di ay e , 43 4 F .3d12 70 , 12 94 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). The ag reem en t an d p art ic ip at io n i n t he co ns pi racy needno t be ex pl ic itan d m ay

be in ferr edfro m

cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce. Uni te d Sta tes v. Pri nc e , 88 3 F .2d95 3, 9 57 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). “ [T]he d efen dant ’s ass en t ca n b e in ferr edfro m

act s t ha t fu rth eredth e co ns pi racy’ s p ur po se .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Mil le r, 69 3 F .2d10 51 , 10 53 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ) (quo ta ti on om it te d) . Inord er t o c on vi ctso m eo ne of s te al in g o r m is ap pl y in g fu nd s fr om an or ga ni zat io n re cei vi ng fed eral ass is ta nc e, th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve : 1 ) th e 5de fen da ntco nv ert edpro pe rty owne d b y , or u nd er the care , cus to dy, or co nt ro l o f

anorg an iz at io n re cei vi ng fed eral ass is ta nc e; 2) t he de fen da ntwas a n a ge ntof s uc h anorg an iz at io n; 3) t ha t p ro pe rty was v al ue d a t $ 5,0 00 or m or e; an d 4 ) th e or ga ni zat io n re cei ve d i n e xc es s o f $1 0,0 00 in fed eral fun ds du rin g t he 1-year pe rio d i n wh ic h t he de fen dantco nv ert edth e p ro pe rty. 18 U.S.C. § 66 6( a)(1 )(A); Ta mpa s , 49 3 F .3dat 1 29 8. Th e st atut e d efi ne s an “ ag en t” as o ne who is

“ au th or iz edto acton be ha lf o f an ot he r” an d, “ in th e cas e o f anorg an iz at io n o r go ve rn m en t, i nc lu de s a s erv an t o r em pl oyee, anda pa rtn er, d ire ct or , off ic er, m an ag er, an d re pr es en ta ti ve .” 18 U.S.C. § 6 66 (d )(1 ); Uni te d Sta tes v. La ng st on , 59 0 F .3d12 26 , 12 33 -3 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) .

“ The ele m en ts of wi re fraudun de r 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 3 a re (1 ) in te nt io na l pa rti ci pa ti on in a sc he m e to de frau d a nd(2) us e o f th e in te rs ta te wire s i n fu rth eran ce o f th e sc he m e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Ha ss on , 33 3 F .3d12 64 , 12 70 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ). “ A sch em e to de frau d re qu ire s p ro of of m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on s, o r th e o m is si on or c on ceal m en t o f m at eri al fact s re as on ab ly calcu la te d t o d ecei ve pe rs on s o f or di na ry

pru de nc e.” Id. at12 70 -7 1 (c it at io ns om it te d) . An in te rs ta te wire tra ns m is si on is “ fo r th e p ur po se of e xe cu ti ng ” th e sc he m e to de frau d i f itis

“ in ci de ntto aness en ti al part o f th e sc he m e” o r “ a st ep in th e p lo t.” Id. at12 72 -7 3 (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . 6Inord er t o c on vi ctso m eo ne of m is ap pl y in g fu nd s as a cred itun io n

em pl oyee, th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve : 1 ) th e d efen da ntwas a n e m pl oyee of th e cred itun io n, 2 ) he wil lfu ll y m is ap pl ie d fu nd s i nt ru st edto th e cre di t u ni on ’s care, 3) he act edwith i nt en t t o i nju re o r de frau d t he cred itun io n, an d 4 ) th e cre di t un io n’s ac co un ts were i ns ur edby the Nati on al Cred itUni onAdm in is tra ti on Bo ard . 18 U.S.C. § 6 57 ; se e Uni te d Sta tes v. Pa yn e , 75 0 F .2d84 4, 8 55 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (s et ti ng forth th e el em en ts of m is ap pl y in g b an k fu nd s u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 6 57 ). Pu rs uantto 18 U.S.C. § 2 : (a) Who ev er co m

m it s an off

en se ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s o r ai ds , ab et s, co un se ls , comm an ds , in du ces or p ro cu res it s co m m is si on , is pu ni sh ab le as apri nc ip al . (b ) Who ev er wi ll fu ll y

cau se s anactto be do ne whi ch if d ire ct ly pe rfo rm edby him

or a no th er wo ul d b e anoff en se ag ai ns t t he Uni te d St at es , is pu ni sh ab le as apri nc ip al . Uni te d Sta tes v. C

or le y , 82 4 F .2d93 1, 9 33 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). To p ro ve a de fen da nt is gu il ty of ai di ng an d abe tt in g t he co m m is si on of acri m e in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 , th e g ov ern m en t m

us t p ro ve th e d efen da ntass is te d t he pe rp etrat orof t he cri m e an d s haredth e requi si te cri m in al in te nt . Uni te d Sta tes v. S ch wa rt z , 66 6 F .2d46 1, 46 3 (1 1th C ir. 1 98 2) . The g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve “ th e d efen da ntass oc ia te d hi m se lf wi th a cri m in al ve ntur e, parti ci pa te d i n i t as so m ethi ng he wis he d t o b rin g

7ab ou t an d s ou gh t b y hi s ac ti on s t o m ak e itsu ccee d.” Id. (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th atNix on an d Tel fai r, who was t he Pres id en t o f FAMU FC U, kn owi ng ly andwil lfu ll y co ns pi redto st eal an d a ctua ll y st ol e atlea st$1 34 ,00 0.0 0 i n g ran t fu nd s b el on gi ng to FAMU, whi ch FAMU h aden tru st edto th e car e o f FAMU FC U. Nixo n a ss ert s th athi s ap pe al tu rn s o n t he factth atTelfa ir wa s l awfu ll y en ti tl edto th e $1 50 ,00 0.0 0 a t i ss ue , pu rs ua ntto th e Ju ly 15, 2 00 4, CS A, andth us , he c an no t b e co nv ic te d o f st eal in g o r co ns pi rin g m on ey th atlawf ul ly bel on ge d t o Tel fai r. Howev er, t ak in g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, the ev id en ce attri al supp orte d afin di ng th atth e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 be lo ng edto FAMU rat he r th anTelfa ir. The ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e g ran t d oc um en ts pro vi de d fo r co ns ul ti ng se rv ic es with F AMU FCU, n otwith a ny ind iv idua l co ns ul ta nt , andth atHUD ap pr ov edFAMU FCU as th e v en do r an d t he cu st od ia n o f th e MLP u nd er the gra nt ag reem en t. FAMU’s p ur ch as in g d ire ct oran d g en eral co un se l ap pr ov edan d of fic ia ll y ex ecu te d t he CSA, whi ch pro vi de d fo r th e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 pa ym en t atis su e, ba se d upo n t he ir b el ie f th atth e ag reem en t was with F AMU FCU, n otTelfa ir. Alt ho ug h t he CSA li st edTelfa ir a s t he pa y ee, the re was tes ti m on y th at , bec au se Telf ai r was th e Pre si de ntof F AMU FCU, h e wou ldha ve be enth e p ers on to si gn 8th e co nt racton be ha lf o f FAMU FC U. After c he ck in g t he gra ntdo cu m en ts for

co m pl ianc e, Tol ethaSy lv es te r Harri s ap pr ov eda requi si ti on ord er fo r a p aym en t of th e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 to FAMU FCU. Dr. Gray-Ray , who ha d app ro ve d a ndsi gn ed th e CSA, co m

pl et eda pu rch as e ex em

pt io n fo r “ Co nt ractua l s erv ic es with F AMU Fed eral Cred itUni on .” There aft er, FAMU i ss ue d ach eckm ad e p ay ab le to FAMU FCU, n otTelfa ir, fo r $1 50 ,00 0.0 0, wh ic h Tel fai r en do rs edon be ha lf o f FAMU FCU a ndde po si te d i nt o t he “ CCEDI-F AMU Urb anPo li cy Gran t” acco un t. The ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e acc ou ntha d b eenus edas ade po si to ry forgra nt fu nd s, i nc lu di ng fun ds us edto sec ur e m ic ro -lo an s u nd er the MLP. Ther e was no ev id en ce o f an y

ot he r acc ou ntwhi ch als o h el d F AMU’s gr an t fu nd s. The ev id en ce fu rth er s ho wedth ataft er Tel fai r de po si te d t he $1 50 ,00 0.0 0 ch eckin to th e g ran t ac co un t, h e wit hd rew $ 15 ,00 0.0 0, o r 10 % of t he de po si t, as hi s fe e fo r ad m in is te rin g t he MLP, an d d ep os it editin to hi s p ers on al ba nkacco un t. The tenpe rcen t fe e was pro vi de d fo r in th e CSA, as well as the ag reem en t u nd er whi chFAMU FCU h adadm in is te redth e MLP u nd er the pri orHUD gran t. The ev id en ce s ho wedth atTelfa ir a lways wit hd rew an am ou ntequi va le ntto rou gh ly te n p erce ntof e achof t he gra ntde po si ts , whi ch was c on si st en t wi thth e adm in is tra ti ve fee t he pa rti es ha d a gr eedto . Telfai r di d n otcla im th e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 on hi s i nc om e ta x re tu rnin 20 04 , 20 05 , 20 06 , 20 07 , or 2 00 8. Ba se d o n thi s 9ev id en ce, i t was reas on ab le forth e jury to c on cl ud e th atth e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 at i ss ue

be lo ng edto FAMU an d n otTelfa ir. The ev id en ce was als o s uf fic ie ntfora reas on ab le jury to fin d t ha t Ni xo n a nd Telf ai r co ns pi redto st eal an d a ctua ll y st ol e ap pr ox im at el y

$1 34 ,00 0.0 0 i n g ran t fu nd s b el on gi ng to FAMU. Altho ug h, as di sc us se d abo ve , th e ev id en ce s up po rte d th atth e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 in th e CCEDI- FAMU ac co un t atis su e d idno t b el on g t o Telf ai r, th e ev id en ce al so sh owe d t ha t, fro m 20 04 to 20 08 , Telfa ir c au se d t he TIN on th e CCEDI- FAMU g ran t ac co un t t o b e ch an ge d m ul ti pl e ti m es , with t he fin al TIN bei ng hi s o wn SS N. He als o a lt eredth e si gn atur e car ds forth e acc ou nt , ev en tu al ly lis ti ng hi m se lf a ndNix on as t he au th or iz edsi gn or s, wh ic h g av e th em th e ab il it y

to writ e ch eck s t o o ne an ot he r un ti l t he y de pl et edth e acc ou nt ’s fun ds . Eve n tho ug h Tel fai r an d Ni xo n, as si gn or s o n a n a cco un t b eari ng th ei r SSNs , had ga in edacce ss to th e fu nd s i n the CCEDI-FAM U acco un t, the ev id en ce s ho wed th atth ey dra fte d m

ul ti pl e fal se co ntract s i n an a tt em ptto faci li ta te an d c on ceal th ei r th eftof t he rem ai ni ng gra ntfun ds in th e CCEDI- FAMU ac co un t. On J un e 2 4, 2 00 8, Tel fai r si gn edanag reem en t wi th Nix on , who si gn edon be ha lf o f th e In st itut e, whi ch pu rp orte d t o e nt it le Telfa ir t o s ev enpe rcen t o f th e fu nd s re m ai ni ng in th e CCEDI- FAMU ac co un t. Purs ua ntto hi s ag reem en t wi th th e “ In st itut e,” Tel fai r was to co nt in ue adm in is te rin g t he MLP, an d h e was to 10pr ov id e se ve ral li st eddo cu m en ts rel at edto th e MLP. Howe ve r, th e ev id en ce

sh owe d t ha t (1 ) th e g ran t was clo se d o n No ve m be r 28 , 20 06 , andth ere wer e n o ne w gra ntfun ds ; (2 ) th e la stlo anch eckun de r th e In st itut e’s MLP was di strib ut ed on Aug us t 2 1, 2 00 7; an d (3 ) Telf ai r ha d a lre ady

pro vi de d t he same MLP do cu m en ts un de r two pre vi ou s co nt ract s. Th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atTelfa ir t he n e-m ai le d Ni xo n a no th er co py of th e Ju ne 24 , 20 08 , con tra ct , refl ect in g ach an ge in th e co nt ract ’s paym en t t erm s fr om sev en , to fiv e p erce nt , of t he acco un t b al an ce. The e-m ai l al so co nt ai ne d apo st -d at edin vo ic e in whi chTelfa ir p ur po rte d t o b il l th e In st itut e fo r hi s ad m in is tra ti on of t he MLP thr ou gh June 30 , 20 08 . There aft er, on Ju ne 28 , 20 08 , Nix on wrot e Tel fai r a ch eckrep res en ti ng fiv e p erce ntof t he CCEDI-F AMU acc ou ntba la nc e, pu rs ua ntto th e in vo ic e u nd er the ne w con tra ct . Ult im at el y , Nix on wrot e Tel fai r two ch eck s fr om th e “ CCEDI-F AMU Urb an Po li cy Gran t” acco un t, wh ic h t og ethe r to ta le d a n a m ou ntex act ly equ al to sev en pe rcen t o f th e b al an ce o f th e g ran t ac co un t Reg ard in g t hi s s pe ci fic co nt ract , Nix ontes ti fie d t ha t h e kne w th e co nt ract was no t re al , andth atitwas ajus t a “ feel go oddo cu m en t” forTelfa ir, “ inth e ev en t tha t h e [was ] ev er que st io ne d abo ut[work t ha t h e h adactua ll y do ne be fo re].” Yet, Nix on wrot e th e ch eckto Telfa ir f orfiv e p erce ntof t he CCEDIFAMU ac co un t b al an ce, p ur su an t t o t he adm it te dl y frau du le nt“ co nt ract ” wit h “ th e 11In st itut e,” aft er Tel fai r e-m ai le d h im anin vo ic e fo r work t ha t Tel fai r ha d yet to co m pl et e. Als o, Co at es tes ti fie d t ha t Ni xo n wro te Telfa ir c he ck s fr om th e CCEDIFAMU ac co un t ar ou ndth e sa m e ti m e th atNix on bo ug hta ne w car. Nix onha d al so be ende li nque ntin pa y in g h is m on th ly car lo anpa y m en ts to FAMU FCU, b ut Telf ai r ga ve Nix on anex te ns io n o n t he pa ym en ts . Fin al ly, as he re, wh ere t he de fen da nttak es th e st an d i n acri m in al cas e an d e xp os es hi s d em ean orto th e jury, th e jury m ay

m ak e ad ve rs e d et erm in at io ns ab ou t h is cred ib il it y an d re ject h is ex pl an at io n a s a c om

pl et e fab ric at io n. Vaz qu ez , 53 F.3dat 1 22 5. Ad di ti on al ly, be cau se th e jury didno t b el ie ve Nix on ’s ver si on of e ve nt s, as was e vi de nc edby th e g ui lt y ve rd ic t i n thi s ca se , Nix on ’s st at em en ts co ul d h av e b een co ns id eredby th e jury as s ub st an ti ve ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . Bro wn , 53 F.3dat 3 15 . This Co urt ha s h el d t ha t “ [t]hi s ru le ap pl ie s wi thsp eci al for ce wh ere t he ele m en ts to be pr ov edfora co nv ic ti onin cl ud e h ig hl y subjec ti ve ele m en ts : fo r ex am pl e, th e de fen da nt ’s in te ntor kno wled ge . . . .” Id. Acco rd in gl y , th is ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a jury to c on cl ud e th atNix on kn ew th atTelfa ir wa s u si ng th e adm it te dl y

frau du le ntco nt ractto leg it im iz e h is tak in g o f fu nd s tha t b el on ge d t o th e In st itut e o f FAMU, an d Ni xo n a id edan d abe tt edth e cri m e b y writ in g t he ch eckforth e fu nd s d es pi te hi s kno wled ge of the frau d. The ev id en ce fu rth er s up po rte d t ha t Tel fai r an d Ni xo n c reat edtwo m or e 12frau du le ntco nt ract s i n a n a tt em ptto faci li ta te an d c on ceal th ei r th eftof f un ds th ey kn ew be lo ng edto FAMU. The e vi de nc e sh owe d t ha t, atso m e p oi nt , Telfa ir a nd Nix onsi gn edth e “ ad de ndum ” ref erri ng to Telfa ir a ndNix on as “ pl an adm in is tra to rs ” an d p ro vi di ng th atth ey were “ res po ns ib le forth e d ay -to -d ay adm in is tra ti on of t he Mi cro -Loa n P ro gr am as i nd ep en de ntco nt ract or s,” f orwhi ch th ey were “ el ig ib le to co ll ectadm in is tra ti ve fees fro m th e b al an ce re m ai ni ng .” Als o, i n No ve m

be r 20 08 , Telfa ir a ndNix on si gn eda “pe rs on al servi ces co nt ract ,” un de r whi ch Nix on was t o wo rkin co nju nc ti on with Tel fai r to m on it orth e ex is ti ng MLP an d d ev el op ne w pro gr am s. Paym en t fo r th es e se rv ic es was t o c om e fro m

“ adm in is tra ti on an d/ orpo ol fun ds rem ai ni ng aft er the li qu id at io n o f an y lo an of fs et s, ch arg e-o ffs .” App ro xi m at el y 1 m on th lat er, Tel fai r an d Ni xo n wro te ch eck s t o o ne an ot he r fo r $6 0,0 67 .55 , whi ch th ey each de po si te d i nt o t he ir pe rs on al ba nkacco un ts . Thes e ch eck s, al on g wi thth e ch eck s t ha t Ni xo n h ad pr ev io us ly writ te n Tel fai r pu rs ua ntto th e ad m it te dl y frau du le ntco nt ract , in di cat ed on th e fac e o f th e ch eck s t ha t t he y were fro m

th e “ CCEDI FAM U Urba n P ol ic y Gran t” acco un t. The ev id en ce s up po rte d t ha t t he se co nt ract s i nv ol ve d (1 ) dupl ic at io n o f pr oduc ts an d s erv ic es , whi ch were l arg el y un ne ces sa ry , or h adalr ead y be en co m pl et edor aut ho riz edun de r pr ev io us co ntract s; (2) pa ym en t o f anam ou ntth at 13was in co ns is te ntwith t he va lu e o f th e se rv ic es pro vi de d; an d (3 ) va gu e o bl ig at io n

an d p aym en t t erm s. Acco rd in gl y , tak in g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, the ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th atNix on an d Tel fai r co ns pi redto st eal an d a ctua ll y st ol e atlea st$1 34 ,00 0.0 0 i n gr an t fu nd s b el on gi ng to FAMU. Mo reo ve r, as di sc us se d abo ve , if t he m on ey rem ai ni ng in th e CCEDI- FAMU ac co un t al read y be lo ng edto Telfa ir u nd er the CSA, as Nix on arg ue s o n app eal , Nix on an d Tel fai r wou ldno t h av e h adto dra ft th es e “ co nt ract s” in anatt em ptto est ab li sh th ei r ri gh t t o t he fun ds . Fin al ly, as di sc us se d abo ve , Nix on ’s st at em en ts reg ard in g h is kn owl ed ge an d i nt en t co ul d ha ve be enco ns id eredby the jury as subs ta nt iv e ev id en ce o f hi s g ui lt . Bro wn , 53 F.3 d a t 3 15 . As t o Ni xo n’s ar gu m en t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro ve cert ai n el em en ts of e ach of t he cri m es ch arg ed , as d is cu ss edbe lo w, th e rec or d i nd ic at es th atth ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce as to each of t ho se ess en ti al ele m en ts su ch th ata reas on ab le jury co ul d fi ndth atNix on was g ui lt y be y on d areas on ab le do ub t. As t o t he co nv ic ti onforco ns pi racy to s te al fun ds fro m FAMU, Nix on ’s arg um en t t ha t h e co ul d n otco ns pi re t o s te al fun ds th atlawf ul ly bel on ge d t o Tel fai r fai ls be cau se , as d is cu ss edab ov e, th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to co nc lu de th atth e fu nd s atis su e d idno t b el on g t o Tel fai r. Mo reo ve r, as 14pr ev io us ly dis cu ss ed , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce tha t Ni xo n a ndTelfa ir

co ns pi redto crea te co nt ract s p ur po rti ng to est ab li shth ei r en ti tl em en t t o fu nd s t ha t th ey kn ew di d n otbe lo ng to th em , andth atth ey wrot e ch eck s t o o ne an ot he r in or de r to ob ta inth os e fu nd s. As t o Ni xo n’s ar gu m en t t ha t t he ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o p ro ve th athe an d Tel fai r co ns pi redto co m m itwire frau d, t he ev id en ce s ho wedth atTelfa ir s en t two e-m ai ls to Nix on in ord er t o fa ci li ta te th e fraudul en t s ch em e to st eal FAMU’s fu nd s. As di sc us se d abo ve , th e fi rs t e- m ai l t ran sm it te d t he frau du le ntJu ne 24 , 20 08 , con tra ctan d t he in vo ic e b il li ng th e In st itut e fo r Telf ai r’s se rv ic es , th ro ug h whi chTelfa ir a ndNix onatt em pt edto leg it im iz e th ei r th eftof F AMU’s gr an t fu nd s. Add it io na ll y , inth e se co nde-m ai l, Tel fai r as ke d Ni xo n fo r th e FAMU Sm al l Bu si ne ss Deve lo pm en t Ce nt er’s TIN, with wh ic h Tel fai r al so so ug htto le gi ti m iz e h is frau du le ntact iv ity . The ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e TIN fo r th e CCEDI-F AMU acc ou ntwas c ha ng edFAMU o n J un e 2 1, 2 00 5. Acco rd in gl y , th es e e-m ai ls were s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce o n wh ic h areas on ab le jury co ul d c on cl ud e th atNix on an d Tel fai r co ns pi redto co m m itwire frau d. As t o Ni xo n’s co nv ic ti on forst eal in g fu nd s b el on gi ng to FAMU, th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th atth e fu nd s b el on ge d to FAMU. Co nt rary to Ni xo n’s as se rti on s, as pre vi ou sl y di sc us se d, t he ev id en ce 15was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li shth atth e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 be lo ng edto FAMU, as op po se d t o

an y ot he r en ti ty, in cl ud in g Tel fai r. Taki ng th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, HUD or ig in al ly awarde d the gra ntm on ey to FAMU. Pur su an t to th e g ran t ag reem en t, FAM U con tra ct edwith F AMU FCU t o e st ab li sh th e MLP. The n, FAM U ent ru st edFAMU FCU wi th th e fund s i n o rd er t o s ecu re l oa ns FAMU FCU p ro vi de d u nd er the MLP. The $ 15 0,0 00 .00 ch eckat i ss ue was d rawn fro m FAMU’s acc ou nt , anditwas d ep os it edin to FAMU’s gr an t ac co un t atFAMU FCU. Ther e was no ev id en ce tha t t he $1 50 ,00 0.0 0 was us edto co ve r de fau lt ed m ic ro -lo an s s uc h tha t FAM U FCU was en ti tl edto th e m on ey , andas p rev io us ly di sc us se d, s uf

fic ie ntev id en ce s up po rte d t ha t Ni xo n a ndTelfa ir i n fa ctst ol e th e fu nd s i n que st io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to fin d t ha t the fun ds rig ht fu ll y be lo ng edto FAMU, whi ch ha d e nt ru st edth e fu nd s to th e car e o f FAMU FC U bef or e th e fu nd s wer e st ol en . As t o Ni xo n’s ar gu m en t t ha t t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro ve th atTelfa ir wa s act in g a s an ag en t o f FAMU, the arg um en t fa il s b ecau se th e ev id en ce s up po rte d th at(1) Telfa ir wa s au th or iz edto acton be ha lf o f FAMU i n a dm in is te rin g t he MLP, i nc lu di ng us in g F AMU’s m on ey to sec ur e m ic ro -lo an s wh ic h Tel fai r in fo rm edlo anreci pi en ts were FAM U m ic ro -lo an s; (2) Telfa ir h el d h im se lf o utas th e ad m in is tra to r of

th e MLP fo r FAMU; (3) Telfa ir wa s au th or iz edto si gn an d

16di d s ig n aco nt racton be ha lf o f FAMU fo r th e v irtua l i nc ub at or , wher ei n Tel fai r

was li st edas t he m ic ro -lo anAdm in is tra to r “ rep res en ti ng , andforth e b en efi t o f, th e INSTITUTE” atFAMU. Becaus e 1 8 U.S.C. § 66 6( d) (1 ) sp eci fic al ly pro vi de s th ata rep res en ta ti ve is anag en t, the ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to fin d t ha t Tel fai r act edas a n a ge ntof F AMU. Mo reo ve r, itis un co nt es te d t ha t Nix on , inhi s capa ci ty as di rect orof t he Ins ti tu te , who was t as ke d s pe ci fic al ly w it h cl os in g o utth e SNI g ran t, was act in g a s an ag en t o f FAMU wh enhe st ol e fu nd s be lo ng in g t o F AMU. Reg ard in g Ni xo n’s co nv ic ti onforaid in g a ndab et ti ng Telfa ir’s s te al in g fu nd s as a cred itun io n e m pl oyee, Nix on arg ue s t ha t t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto pr ov e th athe “ kn owi ng ly andwil lfu ll y ” st ol e th e fund s en tru st edto th e car e o f FAMU FCU, b ecau se Telfa ir wa s co nt ractua ll y en ti tl edto th e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 . Howev er, as di sc us se d abo ve , th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce o n wh ic h areas on ab le jury cou ldrel y

to co nc lu de th atTelfa ir wa s n oten ti tl edto th e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 pa ym en t, an d fu rth er, tha t Ni xo n a ndTelfa ir kno win gl y an d wi ll fu ll y

st ol e th os e fu nd s. Tak in g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e g ov ern m en t, as di sc us se d abo ve , th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 FAMU en tru st edto th e car e o f FAMU FC U rem ai ne d i n the gra ntacco un t, an d b ecau se Telfa ir kne w th athe co ul d n otwithd raw the fun ds be lo ng in g t o F AMU FCU, h e co ns pi redwith 17Nix onto dra ft t hr ee co nt ract s p ur po rti ng to est ab li sh Nix on ’s andTelfa ir’s ri gh t t o th e fu nd s, an d t he n t he y

wrot e ch eck s t o o ne an ot he r fro m th e g ran t ac co un t. The ev id en ce s up po rts th e co nc lu si on th atth os e co nt ract s wo ul d h av e b een un ne ces sary

if t he fun ds alr ead y

be lo ng edto Telfa ir, o r ev enif h e h ada go odfai th be li ef tha t t he y

di d. In st ead , Telfa ir p res en te d t o Hu rs ey th e “ ad de ndum ” th athe an d Ni xo n h adsi gn edin ord er t o t ry an d c on vi nc e h er tha t t he fun ds were h is . Telf ai r ev ento ldHurs ey

th atth e g ran t ac co un t was hi s, af te r he ha d c ha ng edth e acco un t’s TIN to hi s SS N, andcau se d t he acco un t’s s ig na tu re ca rd s t o b e ch an ge d so th athe an d Ni xo n c ou ldwrit e o ne an ot he r ch eck s fr om th e g ran t ac co un t. Acco rd in gl y , th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li shth atTelfa ir kno win gl y an d wil lfu ll y st ol e m on ey

en tru st edto FAMU FCU, an d t ha t Ni xo n a id edan d abe tt ed hi m in so do in g. As di sc us se d abo ve , Nix on “ as so ci at edhi m se lf wi th [th e] cri m in al ve ntur e, pa rti ci pa te d i n i t as so m ethi ng he wis he d t o b rin g abo utan d so ug htby his act io ns to m ak e itsu ccee d.” Sc hw ar tz , 66 6 F .2dat 4 63 . Add it io na ll y , th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh th atTelfa ir i nt en de d to in jure or d efraudFAMU FCU, as th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atFAMU FCU ap pr ov edof Tel fai r’s adm in is tra ti on of t he MLP, an d h is rece ip t o f fee s, b utno t o f hi s t he ft o f ov er $ 13 4,0 00 .00 in gra ntfun ds FAMU h aden tru st edto it s ca re. Acco rd in gl y , th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th at 18Telf

ai r’s kn owi ng an d wi ll fu l the ft o f fu nd s en ti tl edto FAMU FCU’s ca re was co ns is te ntwith a n i nt en t t o i nju re an d d efraud . Fin al ly, as di sc us se d abo ve , th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th atNix on aid edan d ab et te d Tel fai r in st eal in g fu nd s as a cred itun io n e m pl oyee. Bec au se th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to c on cl ud e th at th e $ 15 0,0 00 .00 di d n otbe lo ng to Telfa ir, a ndth atNix onan d Tel fai r co ns pi redto st eal an d a ctua ll y

st ol e atlea st$1 34 ,00 0.0 0 fr om th e g ran t ac co un t, thi s C ou rt sh ou ldaffi rm

as t o t hi s i ss ue . II . The l os s a m ou nt a ttri bute d to Nix on at s ente nci ng under U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 ) Reg ard in g t he am ou ntof l os s at tri bu te d t o h im at s en te nc in g, Ni xo n a rg ue s th atth e actua l l os s s ho ul d h av e b een $3 2,1 79 .66 , whi ch rep res en ts th e $1 50 ,00 0.0 0 i n g ran t fu nd s atis su e, m in us $5 1,1 49 .62 forleg it im at e withd rawal s, an d $ 66 ,67 0.7 2 fo r fu nd s Ni xo n a ndTelfa ir p le dg edto ward s re st itut io n. Acco rd in gl y , bec au se th e lo ss am ou ntsh ou ldha ve be en$3 2,1 79 .66 , th ere s ho ul d on ly hav e b een a 6- le ve l i nc reas e to hi s b as e o ffen se lev el un de r § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 ), in st eadof t he 10 -le ve l i nc reas e th e d is tri ctco urt ap pl ie d. W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s fraudlo ss cal cu la ti on at s en te nc in g fo r cl ear

19erro r. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ren ic k, 27 3 F .3d10 09 , 10 25 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). Pur su an t t o

U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1(b )(1 ), if t he lo ss am ou ntfro m a frau d was m or e th an $1 20 ,00 0.0 0, b utno t m or e th an$2 00 ,00 0.0 0, t he off en se lev el is in crea se d b y 10 le ve ls . The d is tri ctco urt m us t m ak e a rea so nabl e es ti m at e o f th e lo ss am ou nt , whi ch is th e g reat er o f th e actua l l os s o r th e in te nd edlo ss . Uni te d Sta tes v. Hof fma n- Vai le , 56 8 F .3d13 35 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ti ng U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(A) )). The Gui de li ne s d efi ne th e “ actua l l os s” as “ th e rea so nabl y fo res eeab le pe cu ni ary ha rm th atres ul te d fr om

th e o ffen se .” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(A) (i) ). In c al cu la ti ng th e lo ss am ou nt , th e co m m en ta ry to § 2 B1 .1 st at es th atth e lo ss sh al l b e reduc edby “ [t]he m on ey returne d, an d t he fai r m ark et va lu e o f th e p ro pe rty retu rn edan d t he servi ces ren de red , by th e d efen da ntor o th er pe rs on s ac ti ng joi nt ly w it h t he de fen da nt , to th e v ic ti m be fo re the off

en se was de te ct ed .” U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(E) (i) ). The d is tri ctco urt’s es ti m at e of th e lo ss ne edon ly be rea so nabl e. Ren ic k, 27 3 F .3dat 1 02 5; U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(C )). Bec au se th e se nt en ci ng jud ge is in a un ique po si ti on to ass es s th e ev id en ce an d e st im at e th e lo ss ba se d upo n t ha t ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt’s lo ss de te rm in at io n i s en ti tl edto ap pr op ria te de fere nc e. Se e U.S.S.G. § 2 B1 .1, co m m en t. (n .3(C )); se e a ls o Un it ed St at es v. Mil le r , 18 8 F .3d13 12 , 13 17 (11 th Ci r. 19 99 ). 20Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err wh enitde te rm in edth atNix on was res po ns ib le foranactua l l os s b etween $1 20 ,00 0.0 0 a nd$2 00 ,00 0.0 0, an d t hu s, th atth e 1 0- le ve l en ha nc em en t was ap pr op ria te . Bas edon th e fi nd in gs of t he jury, whi chas p rev io us ly dis cu ss ed , were s up po rte d b y su ffi ci en t ev id en ce, as well as th e PSI a ndth e ev id en ce p res en te d a t s en te nc in g, t he di st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n of th e lo ss attrib ut ab le to Nix on ap pe ars to be a reas on ab le est im at e o f th e lo ss , an d t hu s, n otcle arl y

erro ne ou s. Fi rs t, as di sc us se d abo ve , th e ev id en ce s up po rts th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g th atTelfa ir a ndNix on st ol e atlea st$1 34 ,00 0.0 0 i n g ran t fu nd s b el on gi ng to FAMU, as th ey

kn owi ng ly dep os it ed4 ch eck s fr om FAMU’s gr an t ac co un t, to ta li ng ap pr ox im at el y

$1 34 ,00 0.0 0, i nt o the ir o wn p ers on al ba nkacco un ts , eve n th ou gh th ey

kn ew th atth ey

were n oten ti tl edto th e m on ey . Next , th e ev id en ce supp orts th e fi nd in g o f th e d is tri ctco urt t ha t a t ot al of a t l eas t $ 30 0,0 00 .00 in gra nt fu nd s was de po si te d i nt o t he acco un t, al l o f whi ch Nix on an d Tel fai r co ul d h av e st ol en . As su ch , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly rejecte d Tel fai r’s as se rti on at se nt en ci ng th atth e b as el in e fo r cal cu la ti ng th e lo ss am ou ntwas t he $1 50 ,00 0.0 0 ch eckTelfa ir a rg ue d t ha t h e was en ti tl edto . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt pr op erl y reject edTelfa ir’s a ss ert io n a t s en te nc in g t ha t t he lo ss am ou ntsh ou ldha ve be enreduc edby the am ou ntof l eg it im at e wit hd rawal s fr om th e acc ou nt , as 21acco un t fu nd s o th er than t ho se Nix onan d Tel fai r st ol e were a va il ab le to co ve r

th os e le gi ti m at e wit hd rawal s. Mo reo ve r, th e d is tri ctco urt co rrec tl y po in te d o ut th atth e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth ere wer e can cel le d c he ck s i n t he am ou ntth at Nix onan d Tel fai r st ol e fro m th e acc ou nt , whi ch was app ro xi m at el y $1 34 ,00 0.0 0, reg ard le ss of wh ethe r an y othe r withd rawal s wer e le gi ti m at e. Fin al ly, th e d is tri ct co urt co rrec tl y

reject edTelfa ir’s a ss ert io n a t s en te nc in g tha t t he lo ss am ou nt sh ou ldbe reduc edby the am ou ntNix on an d Tel fai r pl ed ge d i n re st itut io n, as th e Gui de li ne s s ug ge stth atth e lo ss am ou ntsh al l o nl y be reduc edby the m on ey returne d be

fo re th e o ffen se was d et ect ed . U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 , comm en t. (n .3(E) (i) ). Acco rd in gl y , bec au se th ere i s n o e vi de nc e th atNix on or Tel fai r returne d a ny m on ey be fo re the ir o ffen se s wer e d et ect ed , th is Co urt s ho ul d a ffi rm as t o thi s is su e. Con cl us io n The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r a rea so nabl e jury to fi ndNix on gu il ty on each of t he ch arg edoff

en se s. Als o, t he di st ric t co urt d idno t cl earl y err i n cal cu la ti ng a reas on ab le frau d l os s amoun t i n t hi s ca se . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm Nix on ’s con vi ct io ns an d s en te nc es . AFFIRMED.

22