1

15-2766 

United States v. Saelim

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER 

FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF 

APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY 

ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX 

OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ‘SUMMARY ORDER’). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY 

ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 

1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 

2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 

3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

2nd 4 day of December, two thousand sixteen. 

5 

6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

7 ROSEMARY S. POOLER, 

8 Circuit Judges, 

9 

10 GEOFFREY W. CRAWFORD,* 

11 Judge. 

12 

13 

14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

15 

16 United States of America, 

17 Appellee, 

18 

19 -v.- 15-2766 

20 

21 Usawan Saelim, 

22 Defendant-Appellant, 

23 

 

* Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford, of the United States 

District Court for the District of Vermont, sitting by 

designation.
2

1 Rana Khandakar, also known as Rick 

2 Shinwat, 

3 Defendant. 

4 

5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 

6 

7 FOR APPELLANT: Elizabeth E. Macedonio, New York, 

8 NY; Randall D. Unger, Bayside, NY. 

9 

10 FOR APPELLEE: Christine Magdo, Karl Metzner, 

11 Assistant United States Attorneys, 

12 for Preet Bharara, United States 

13 Attorney for the Southern District 

14 of New York. 

15 

16 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 

17 for the Southern District of New York (Koeltl, J.). 

18 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 

19 DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED. 

20 

21 Usawan Saelim was convicted, after a three-week jury trial, 

22 of conspiracy to commit access device fraud in violation of 18 

23 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2); conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud 

24 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; bank fraud in violation of 

25 18 U.S.C. § 1344 and 2; aggravated identity theft in violation 

26 of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A and 2; and conspiracy to steal government 

27 funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The district court 

28 (Koeltl, J.) sentenced her to an aggregate term of 36 months 

29 of incarceration to be followed by three years of supervised 

30 release. The district court also imposed a mandatory special 

31 assessment and entered restitution and forfeiture orders. 

32 Saelim argues that the evidence was insufficient to 

33 establish that she participated in a conspiracy or that she 

34 knowingly committed the charged crimes. Her co-defendant and 

35 boyfriend (later, her husband), Rana Khandakar, largely 

36 confessed to the crimes and testified at trial that Saelim was 

37 not a knowing participant. 

38 “We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence de 

39 novo.” United States v. Pierce, 785 F. 3d 832, 837 (2d Cir. 

40 2015). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence 

41 bears a heavy burden because “we view the evidence in the light 

42 most favorable to the government, drawing all inferences in the 
3

1 government’s favor and deferring to the jury’s assessments of 

2 the witnesses’ credibility.” Id. at 838. “We will sustain the 

3 jury’s verdict if any rational trier of fact could have found 

4 the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” 

5 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). We acknowledge that 

6 “[t]he jury may reach its verdict based upon inferences drawn 

7 from circumstantial evidence,” and on review, “the evidence must 

8 be viewed in conjunction, not in isolation.” United States v. 

9 Persico, 645 F. 3d 85, 104 (2d Cir. 2011). In cases of 

10 conspiracy, deference to the jury’s determinations of 

11 credibility, weight of the evidence and inferences “is 

12 especially important . . . because a conspiracy by its nature 

13 is a secretive operation, and it is a rare case where all aspects 

14 of a conspiracy can be laid bare in court with the precision 

15 of a surgeon’s scalpel.” United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 

16 1121 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation 

17 omitted). 

18 Saelim argued at trial, as she argues now, that the 

19 government failed to prove her participation in Khandakar’s 

20 crimes. The jury rejected that argument, and to the extent that 

21 Saelim relies on Khandakar’s testimony, we must defer to the 

22 jury’s adverse assessment of his credibility. 

23 The government offered abundant evidence that Saelim 

24 knowingly participated in the fraudulent schemes. The relevant 

25 criminal conduct was done primarily in the home that Saelim and 

26 Khandakar shared, and that Saelim’s personal cell phone and 

27 laptop were used in that conduct. Evidence found on her devices 

28 reflected the use of stolen credit cards, the online sale of 

29 stolen goods, text messages to and from potential purchasers 

30 of those goods, and extended communications negotiating their 

31 prices. One telling example was Saelim’s communications with 

32 her friend “Phillip,” in which she provided specific advice on 

33 how to sell items purchased with stolen credit card information 

34 and on how to avoid detection and account suspension on eBay. 

35 Given the breadth of communications provided, a reasonable jury 

36 could conclude that Saelim knowingly engaged in those unlawful 

37 activities herself, notwithstanding Khandakar’s testimony that 

38 he was responsible for them, and merely borrowed Saelim’s 

39 devices. 

40 The government provided additional evidence probative of 

41 Saelim’s knowing participation in the criminal conspiracy and 

42 substantive crimes, whether or not the crimes were orchestrated 
4

1 by Khandakar. Saelim possessed a large quantity of cash and 

2 stolen credit cards and she repeatedly deposited large amounts 

3 of the proceeds of criminal conduct into a bank account that 

4 only she could access. Taken in combination, and viewed in the 

5 light most favorable to the government, the evidence at trial 

6 was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find her guilty of the 

7 charged crimes. 

8 Accordingly, and finding no merit in appellant’s other 

9 arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

10 FOR THE COURT: 

11 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK