Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 11234

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. GA RYDO N R OB I NS ON D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 1: 07- C R

- 00029

B ef ore G A R W O O D , O W E N , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * D ef endant

- A ppel l antG ar y D on R obi nso n appeal s hi s c onvi c t i on on t hi r t yt h ree c ou n t s ari si n g f rom hi s al l egedcon spi racy t o m ak e, possess , an d u t t er c ount er fei tsec urit i es ; u t t er i ng c ount er fei tsec uri t i es ; an d ai di ng and abet t i ng. B ecau se t h e di st ri ctcourterred i n sh ackli n g R obi n son throug h ou tt h e course of hi s t r i aland t he G ove r nm enthas fai l ed t o pro ve beyo nd a r eas onabl e do ubtt hat t h e shack l i n g di d n otcon t ribu t e to the verdi ct , w e R E V E R S E an d R E M A N D f or a n e w tr ia l. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 11234

2 BA CK GRO UND G a ryD on R ob i n son , D ea n d a L a sh a e C ra yto n , an dC yn th i a E l a i n e W a tts
w e r e c har ge d b y i ndi c t m e ntw i t h o ne co untof co ns pi r i ng t o m ak e , po s s e s s , a nd
u t t er c ou n t erf

ei tsec u ri t i es of

a n orga n i zati on w i t h the i n t en tto deceive an ot h er per so n and or gani zat i on i n vi ol at i on o f 18 U
. S. C
. § 371 (c ount one) and w i t h 32
cou n ts of u tteri n g co u n terfei t secu ri ti es o f a n org a n i za ti on w i th the i n ten t t o de c e ive a no t he rpe r s o n a nd o r ga ni z at i o n i n vi o l at i o n o f 18 U
. S. C. § § 5 13 ( a) a nd 2 (coun t s 2- 33). C ou n t s 2 t h rough 1 5 a l l egedt h at t h e defen da n t s m ad e, possessed, an d u t t ered coun t erf ei tchecks of

C i t iban k D el aw are in t h e na m e of

“ Eagl e Tr uc ki ng andTr ans po r t
. ” Cou nt s 16 t h r o ugh3 3 al l e ge d t hatt he de fe nda nt s m ad e , po s s e s sed, a nd u t t e r e d c o unt e r fe i tc he c ks o f Ci t iba nk D el aw are i n t h e na m e of “ E n gag ed E n ergy. ” C rayton an d W att s enter ed i n t o a p le a a g r e e m e n t w ith th e G o v e r n m e n t a n da g r e e dto te s tifya g a in s t R o b in s o n . I m m edi at ely be f

or e t he part i es gave t hei rope ni ng s t at em ent s t o t he j ury, R obi n son, w h o represented hi m sel f w i t h t hea s s i s t anc eo f s t andbyc ou n sel , asked t he c our t i f he c oul d appro ac h t he benc h “ f or a pre l i m i nary m at t er” t o r ai se an ob j ection ou tsi d e th e p rese n ce of the j u ry . T h e cou rt refuse dh i s req u est. Robi ns o n t he n r ai s e d t he f o l l o w i ng o bj e c t i o n: “ I kno w s o m e o f t he j ur o r s m i ght hav e s e e n m e w al k i n l e g s hac kl e s . Io bj e c tt o b e i ng . . . broug h tin b efo r e t he pr e s e nc e o f

t he j ur y i n l e g s hac kl e s . ” The c o ur to ve r r ul e d t he o bj e c t i o n wi t ho ut
ex p l a n a ti on an dall ow ed th e G ov ern m en t to p roce ed w i th its ope n i n g sta tem en t. O n a ppe al , Rob i ns o n a s s e r t s t hath e w as s hac kl e d t hr o ugh o utt he t r i al ; t he G o v e r n m e n t h a s n o t a r g u e dto th e co n tr a r y . The e vi de nc e i nt r o duc e d a tt r i alw as i n s um as f o l l o w s . The go ve r nm e nt of fered a s exh ibi t s s everalcashedchecks pu rport edl y draw i n g on accoun t s of E n gag ed E n ergy an d E agle T rucking & T ran sport
. T h e checks st ated t h at t h ey w e r e i s s ue d b y “ CI TI BA N KD EL AW AR E” a nd i nc l ude d Ci t iba nk’ s r o ut i ngN o. 07- 11234

3 n u m ber, bu tw i t h i n vali d accoun tnu m bers. AC i t iban k vic e- presi den tt est i f i ed t hatCi t ib a n k wa s an a t i o n a lb a n k i n ga s s o c i a t i o n , as u b s i d i a r yo f Ci t i g r o u p, operati n g com m erci alan d ret ai lban king operati on s t h roug h o u tt h e U n i t ed St at es and abr oad. H e t es t i f i ed t hatt he bank w as t he l ar ges tf i nanci al org a n i zat i on i n t he U ni t ed St at es . H e t es t i f i ed t hatC i t ibank di d nothave
a c c o u n ts in th e n a m e o f E n g a g e dE n e r g yo rE a g le T r u c k in g& T r a n s p o r t. S om e of t h e checks w ere m ad e pay able t o “ G
. D . R o b in son ” an d cash ed
u si n g R obi n son’ s driver’ s l i cense nu m ber. W att s and a ha n dw ri t i n g exp ert t e s t i f i e d t hat Robi ns o n had e ndo r s e d s o m e o f t he s e c he c ks
. So m e o f t he c he c ks al s o had va r i o us des c r i pt o r s w r i t t e n on t he m t hatm at c he d Ro bi ns o n, i nc l udi ng h i s sex , race , da te of bi rth , l i cen se e xp i ra ti on da te, an dap p rox i m a te h eigh t. W he n Rob i ns o n was a r r e s t e d, t he po l i c e f o und bl ankEnga ge d Ene r gyc he c ks and E agl e Tr ucki ng & T r anspo r tchec ks i n hi s c ar . Tw o w i t nes se s t es t i f i ed t hat R obi nso n at t em pt ed t o cas h c hec ks si m i l art o t he c hec ks f ound i n hi s c art he day th a t h e w a s a r r e s te d
. Som e o f t he c ount s agai nstR obi nso n w er e b as ed o n che c ks c as hed by Cra yt o n, W at t s , a nd a no t he rw o m an nam e d Lul a H unt e r . Cr ay t o n, W at t s , a nd H u n t er t est i f

i ed that t h ey h ad each cash e d c h e ck s given to t h em by R obi n son d r a w n o n b a n k a c c o u n ts p u r p o r tin gto b e lo n gto E n g a g e d E n e r g yo rE a g le Tr uc ki ng & Tr ans po r t
. Cr ay t o n a nd W at t s w e r e b o t h i n r o m ant i c r e l at i o ns hi ps w i t h R obi n son a n d h a d a cces s t o t h e equ i pm en tused t o f orge t h e checks, i n cl udi ng a s t am p o f Robi ns o n’ s s i gna t ur e us e d o n s o m e o f t he f o r ge d c h ecks. C rayton t est i f

i ed that she st ol e a check gi vi n g ri se t o one of t h e coun t s agai n st R obi n son an d cashed ith erself w i t h ou th i s k n ow l edg e. C rayton al so adm i t t ed t h at s h e ha d gi ven perj u red t est i m on y i n t h e past t o geta redu ced sentence. Robi ns o n m o ve d f

o raj udgm e nto f

a c quit t ala tt he c l o s e o f t he G o v e rn m e n t’ s c a se , a n dth e co u rt d e n ied th e m o tion
. R o b in so n d idn o t te stifyN o. 07- 11234

4 on hi s ow n b eh al f

. A f t er the defense rest ed, stand by coun selinf orm ed t h e court th a t R ob i n son h a dask ed cou n sel t o “tak e ov er th e con cl u sion of h i s ca se.” On Se p t e mb e r2 5 , 2 0 0 7 , t h e j u r yf o u n dRo b i n s o n g u i l t yo n a l lc o u n t s . O n O ct ober 1, 200 7, R obi n son, t h rough c o u n sel , f i l ed a ren ew ed m ot i on f or a j udgm entof

ac qui t t al , and t he c our tdeni ed t he m oti on . O n O c t obe r9, 2007, R obi nso n, pr o s e, f

i l ed a m ot i on for new t r i aldat ed O c t obe r4, 2007, ar gui ng, am on g ot h er t h i n gs, t h at he w as enti t l ed to a n ew t ri albecau se he w as shack l ed dur i ng t r i alde s pi t e t he a bs e nc e o f a ny r e c o r d o f

v i o l e nc e o rm i s be hav i o r. The
c o u r t d e n ie dth e m o tio n fo ran e w tr ia l w ith o u t c o m m e n t. DI S CU S S I ON I. S u ffi c ien t E v id e n c e S u p p o rts th e J u ry ’ s G u il ty V e rd ict. W e f i rsta ddr e s s w he t he rt he r e w as s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o s upp o r tt he j ury’ s ver di c t
. O ur r evi ew of t he s uf f i c i enc y of

t he e vi denc e i s “ ‘ hi ghl y de fer ent i al to the ve rd i ct. ’” Un i t ed S t ate s v. E lashyi , 5 5 4 F. 3 d 4 8 0 , 4 9 1 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. G u l ley , 5 2 6 F .3 d8 0 9 , 8 1 6 (5 th C ir .), cer t. d en i ed , ___ U .S . ___ , 1 2 9 S .C t. 1 5 9 (2 0 0 8 ). W e w ill re v e r s e fo rin s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e o n ly
w hen t h e e vi de nc e , w he n r e vi e w e d i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he go ve r nm e nt , w o ul d no t al l o w a r at i o nal fac t f i nde r t o f

i nd e ve r y e l e m e nto f t he
o ffe n s e b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t. Id . a t 4 9 2
. T o p rov e a n off

en se u n d er § 5 1 3 (a), the G ov e rn m en t m u st pro ve tha t a d ef endant : 1) m ade, ut t er ed, orpos se ss ed 2) a c ount er fei torf or ged se c uri t y 3) of a n o rg an i zati on 4) w i t h i n t en tt o deceive an ot h er person, organ i zati on , or g o v e r n m e n t. Un itedS ta tes v. Ch a pp ell , 6 F .3d 1 0 9 5 , 1 0 9 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). Se c t i o n 5 13 ( a) ( 4) de f i ne s “ o r ga ni z at i o n” t o i nc l ude “ a l e ga le nt i t y, o t he rt han a govern m en t , est abli shed or organ i zed f or anypu rpose . . . w h i ch operat es i n or t he ac t ivit i e s of

w hi c h af

fe c ti nt e r s t at e orfo r e i gn c o m m e r c e . ” § 5 13 (c ) ( 4)
. I n t heN o. 07- 11234

The purported account hol ders, “Eagl e Trucking and Transport”an d “E ngaged 1 E n ergy” aref

ictitiou s, an d theref

ore cannotb e organization s un der § 5 1 3 (c)(4). See United States v. Wade , 2 6 6F .3 d 5 7 4 , 5 8 1 (6thC ir
. 2 0 0 1 ). Robinsondoe s not ch allenge the sufficiencyof theevidence that he ma de, uttered , or 2 possessed the checks giving ri se toeach count onwhich he was convicted. Wewish to note, however, thatalthou ghC rayton testified that she stole oneof the forged checks from Robinson and cashe d itwithout his knowledge, she te stifiedth at Rob inson m ad e and possessed the forgedch eck b ef

ore she stole it
. 5 p re se n t ca se , C itib a n k is th e on ly p o te n tia l “or g a n iza tion ” a s th a t te rm is d e fined b y§ 5 1 3 (c)(4 ). 1 R obi nso n as s e r t s tha tCit ib a nkwas notan “ or gani zat i on” under § 5 13(c ) ( 4) becau se th e G overnm en tfai l ed to dem on st rat e t h at C i t iban k op erat ed i n or af fec t ed i nt er st at e c om m er c e. Avi c e- pre si dentof C i t ibank t es t i f

i ed t hat C i t iban k, a na t i on alban king associ ati on cha rt ered u n der t h e l aw of t h e U n i t ed S t ates an d in sured b y t h e F ederalD eposi tI n suran ce C orporati on , t ran sact ed both com m erci ala n d ret ai lban king operati on s t h rough ou tt h e U n i t ed S t ates
an d i n t erna t i on al l y, an d w a s th e l argestf i n an ci alorgan i zati on i n t h e U n i t ed S tates. Th e vi ce- presi den t ’ s t est i m on y sati sf i es t h e i n t erst ate c om m erce r e q u ir e m e n t. R obi n son als o asser t s t h at t h e f orged check s w ere not securi t i es of C itib a n k b e c a u s e th e yw e r e n o t d r a w n o nle g itim a t e C itib a n k a c c o u n ts
. T h is court h as al readyh el d t h at f orged check s are a securi t y of t h e ban k u pon w h i ch t he y pur po r tt o b e dr awn, e ve n when t he r e i s no a c t uala c c o untm at c hi ng t he
c h e c k
. Ch a

pp ell , 6 F
. 3d at 109 7, 109 9 (h ol di n g t h at f orged c h ecks t h at “bore i nac c ur at e r o ut i ng andt r ans i tnum be r s ” w e r e se c ur i t i e s o f b ank)
. I n t he pr e s e nt
c as e , t he r e w as suf

f i c i e ntev i de nc e t hatfo r ge d c he c ks w e r e s e c ur i t i e s o f Ci t iba nk b e c a u s e t h e c h e c k s s t a t e dt h a tt h e ywe r e i s s u e db y“ CI TI BANK DELAW ARE” andi nc l ude d Ci t iba nk’ s r o ut i ng num be r . W e co nc l ude t hatt he ev i de nc e i n t he p rese n t case w a s su ff i ci en t t o su p p ort th e j u ry ’ s ve rd i ct. 2N o. 07- 11234

Attorneys are remin ded of their ongoing dutyof can dor to the court. Miscitingca ses 3 and failing

to cite controlling precedent while arguing a clearly inapplicablestan dard are not cons ist ent with co mp lianc e with thisduty. 6 I I . The Di s t r i c tCour t Vi ol at e d t he D ue Pro c e s s Cl aus e by Requi r i ng R obi nson t o Ap peari n Sh ackl es Th r oughou tTri al
. R obi n son assert s on ap pea lt h at the di st ri ctcou rtv i ol ated his du e process r ig h ts b yh a v in gh im a p p e a rin s h a c k le s t h r o u g h o u t h is ju r ytr ia l. SeeD e c k v. Mi ssouri , 5 4 4 U .S . 6 2 2 (2 0 0 5 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Jo s e ph , 3 3 3 F
. 3 d58 7 , 59 0 -91 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Ho pe , 1 02 F. 3d1 14 , 11 7 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 6)
. I n D eck , t he Supr e m e Cour the l d t hat “ t he Fi f t h andFo ur t e e nt h Am e ndm e nt s pr o hibi tt he
us e o f phys i c alre s t r ai nt s v i s ibl e t o t he j ur y ab s e ntat r i alc o ur tde t e r m i nat i o n, in th e e x e r c is e o f its d is c r e tio n , t h a t th e ya r e ju s tifie db ya s ta te in te r e s t s p e c ific to a p a rti cu l a r tri a l
. ” Id
. at 629
. T h e C ou rtexpl ai n ed that vi sibl e shack l i n g of
a c r i m i n a ld e f

e n d a n tdur i ng t r i al“ unde r m i ne s t he pr e s um pt i o n o f i nno c e nc e a nd t h e r e la t e dfa ir n e s s o f t h e fa c t fi n d in gp r o c e s s ,” “c a n in t e r fe r e w it h ad e fe n d a n t ’s ab i l i t y t o pa r t i c i pa t e i n hi s o w n de fe ns e , s ayb y f r e e l y c ho o s i ng w he t he rt o t ak e t he w i t ne s s s t and o n hi s o w n be half, ” and “ ‘ af f r o nt [ s ] ’t he ‘ di gnit y andde c o r um of j u d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs th a t th e j u d ge i s see k i n g to u p h old.’” Id
. at630- 31 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal) ( quot i ng Il l i n oi s v. A l len , 397 U
. S
. 3 37, 3 44 ( 197 0) )
. E ven bef ore D eckw as de c i de d b y t he Supr e m e C o ur t , t hi s co ur thel d t hat“ [ s ] hac kl i ng i s an i nhere nt l y pr ej udi c i alpr ac t i c e, per m i t t ed o n l y w hen j ust i f i ed byan e s s e n ti a lstate intere st spe ci fi c to ea ch tri a l
. ” Jo s e ph , 3 3 3 F .3 da t 5 9 0 -9 1 ; see als o Ho pe , 102 F
. 3d at 1 1 7 . I n exp l i cabl y, t h e G overnm en tfai l s t o cit e D eck , Jo s e ph , or Ho

pei n i ts brief to this cou rt. 3 O f c our se , s hackl i ng i s notal w ays prohibi t ed. Th er e m ay be an ess ent i al i nt er es tj ust i f

yi ng s hackl i ng w her e t her e i s a dan gerof es c ape o ri nj ury t o t r i al p a r tic ip a n ts
. Jo s e

ph , 3 3 3 F .3 da t 5 9 1 ; Ho pe , 102 F
. 3d at 117
. B u tt h e di st ri ct court m u stst ate t h e reasons f or w h i ch i th as ch osen t o sh ackle t h e d efen da n tonN o. 07- 11234

7 t h e rec ord outsi de of t h e presence of

t h e j u ry or e xcepti on alcircum st an ces ju s tify in gs h a c k lin gm u s t b e a p p a r e n t o n th e re c o r d
. Jo s e ph , 333 F. 3d at591; Ho pe , 10 2 F
. 3 dat 11 7 -1 8 . In the pr ese n t case , the distri ct cou rt refuse dto provi de an y reason f or s h ackli n g R obi n son, even af t er R obi n son m ad e a proper o b j e c t i o n . N o ris a n yre a s o n re a d ilya p p a r e n t fr o m th e re c o r d
. S ee D eck , 544 U
. S. at635 ( “ I f

t her e i s an exc ept i onalc as e w her e t he r ec or d i t se l f m akes c l ear th a t t h e r e a r e in d is p u ta b lyg o o dre a s o n s fo rs h a c k lin g , it is n o t t h is o n e .”). A l t hough t he di st r i c tc o ur tv i o l a t e dRo b i ns o n’ s d ue p r o c e s s r i ght s by hav i ng hi m a ppe ari n s hac kl e s through o uthi s j ur y t r i al , w e m us ts t i l lde c i de
w h et h er a new t ri ali s w arran t ed. T h e G overnm en tcon t en ds t h at the convic t i on shou l d be a f

f i r m e d b e c aus e Rob i ns o n ha s fail e d t o o f fe ra ny e vi de nc e of pr ej udi c e , r e l yi ng o n t hi s c o ur t ’ s o pi ni o n i n Uni t e d St at e s v . D i e c i due , 603 F. 2d 535 , 549 ( 5th C i r. 1 979 )
. A gain, the G overnm en tfai l s to ci t e the corr ectcases . I t s r e l i anc e o n D i eci d u e i s i n corr ectb ecau se that case di d no ti nvo lve “ s i t uat i o ns of un u su a lres train t su ch as sh a ck l i n g o f d efen d a n ts du ri n g trial
. ” Id
. W h ere unj us t i f i e d s hac kl i ng i s i m po s e d bya di s t r i c tco ur t , as i n t he pr e s e ntc as e , “ t he defenda n tneed not dem on st rat e act u alprej u di ce t o m ak e out a du e process violati on . ” D eck , 5 44 U
. S
. a t6 35
. Rat he r , “ [t] he St at e m us tpr o ve ‘be yo nd a
rea son a b l e dou b t th a t th e [ sh a ck l i n g] erro r com p l a i n ed of d i d n ot con trib u te to th e v erd i ct obta i n ed
. ’” Id
. ( quot i ng Ch a p m a n v. Ca lif

o rn ia , 3 8 6 U
. S. 1 8 , 24 (1 9 6 7 )). T h e G overnm en tm ak es no att em pt t o m eeti t s burd en i n t h e present c ase, and w e ho l d t hatt he rec or d d oe s notes t abl i sh be yond a r eas onabl e do ubtt hat t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s er ror di d n otcon trib u te to the verdic t
. Th e di st ri ctcourt
ove r r ul ed Robi nso n’ s obj ec t i on t o b ei ng s hackl ed i n t he vi ew of t he j ury, s u p p o r tin gR o b i n s o n ’ s a s s e r tio n th a t h e w a s s h a c k le dth r o u g h o u t t r ia l. Tel l i ngl y, t he G ove r nm entdoe s notas se r tot her w i se , buti nstead a rg ues t hat t h ere i s onl y on e m en t i on of R obi n son w e a rin gshack l es i n t h e recor d
. T h isN o. 07- 11234

8 argu m en ti s un persua sive becau se t h ere i s n o reason to exp ecttha tthe record
w o ul d c o nt ai n a ny di s c us s i o n o f Rob i ns o n’ s s hac kl e s a f t e rt he di s t r i c tc o urt
o ve r r ul e d hi s o bj e c t i o n. As t he Supr e m e Cour to bs e r ve d i n D eck , “t h e pract i ce w i l lof t en have negat ive ef fec t s, bu t –li k e ‘ t he c ons equenc es of c om pel l i ng a defenda n tt o w ear pri son cl ot h i n g’or of f orci n g h i m t o st an d tr i alw h en m ed i ca ted

– th ose effects ‘ ca n n ot b e sho w n from a tri a ltr a n s cript. ’” Id
. at635 ( quot i ng R igg i ns v . Ne v ada , 5 0 4 U .S . 1 2 7 , 1 3 7 (1 9 9 2 )). M o r e o v e r , R o b in s o n a s s e r ts o n a p p e a l t h a t h e d e c id e dn o t t o te s tifyo n h is
o w n b e h a lf

b e c a u s e o f t h e p r ej u d i c e t h a tw o u ld r e s u ltfr o m d r a w in gth e ju r y ’s at t e nt i o n t o hi s s hac kl e s . Thi s con cern w as i de nt i f i e d i n D e c k as one ba si s f or h o ld in gth a t t h e p r a c tic e is in h e r e n tlyp r eju d ic ia l. Id
. at631 ( “ [ Sh ac kl es ] c an i nt er fer e w i t h a def

endant ’ s a b i l i t y t o par t i c i pat e i n hi s ow n def ens e, s ay by f r e e l y c ho o s i ng w he t he rt o t ak e t he w i t ne s s s t ando n hi s o w n b e half

. ” )
. The G ov ern m en t m a k es n o a ttem p t t o d e m o n s tra te tha t R ob i n son ’ s ch oice n ot to t e s t i f y as ar e s ul to f

t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s e r r o rw as no tpr ej udi c i al
. Bec aus e t he G o v e r n m e n t h a s n o tp r o v e n b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t t h a t t h e s h a c k lin gd id
n o t c o n tr ib u te t o t h e v e r d ic t, w e m u s t r e v e r s e a n dre m a n dfo ran e w tr ia l. S ee id
. at635. III. R o b in so n ’ s C h a ll e n g e s to th e In d ictm e n t L a c k M e rit. R obi nso n ar gues t hatt he i ndi c t m entw as i nsuf f i c i en t a n d s houl d have bee n di sm i ss ed be c ause i tfai l ed t o a l l ege an i n terst at e c om m er c e ne xus as an e l e m e nto f

§ 5 13 ( a) , t he j ur y c har ge co ns t r uc t ive l y am e nde d t he i ndi c t m e nt , a nd t h e G overnm en tk n ow i n gl y i n t rodu ced perj u red t est i m on y bef ore t h e gran d j u ry i n vi ol ati on of

18 U
. S
. C
. § 1623

. H e a l so asser t s t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtabu sed its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in gh is m o tio n s fo ra n e ig h t-d a ye x te n s io n o f th e tim e to file p re-tri a lm oti on s. R ob i n son ’ s ch a l l en ge s to the i n d i ctm en t are w i th ou t m erit. T h i s c ou rtw i l lnot r everse f or m i n or def

i ci en ci es i n an i n di ct m en tw h i ch d o n o t p r eju d ic e ad e fe n d a n t. Un itedS ta tes v. Ch a pp ell , 6 F
. 3 d10 9 5 , 10 9 9 ( 5 thN o. 07- 11234

9 C i r. 199 3)
. Th e i n di ct m en ti n t h e present c ase al l egedt h at R obi n son “di d m ak e, pos se ss , and ut t er , f

or ge dand c ount er fei t ed s ec uri t i es of an or gani zat i on, as t hat t erm i s def

i n ed i n [1 8 U
. S
. C
. §] 513 (c) ( 4) , w i t h t h e i n t en tt o deceive an ot h er person a n d organ i zati on . ” T h e indivi du alcou n t s set ou tt h e date of t h e of fen se, t he na m e o f

t he dr awer( Eagl e T ruc ki ng o rEnga ge d Ene r gy) , t he na m e o f t he f i n a n c i a li n s t i t u t i o n ( Cit ib a n k De l a wa r e ) , and t he a m o u n to f t h e c h e c k
. By al l egi n g t h at R obi n son 1) m ad e, utt ered, or possessed 2) f o r ge d a nd coun t erf

ei t ed
s e c ur i t i e s 3 ) o f

a n o r ga ni z at i o n 4 ) w i t h i nt e ntt o de c e ive a not he rpe r s o n a nd
or gani zati on, R obi nso n’ s i ndi c t m ents etf or t h t he e ss ent i alel em ent s of § 513( a)
a n d , th u s , w a s n o t in s u ffic ie n t. S eeCh a pp ell , 6 F. 3 d a t 1 0 9 9

- 1 100. N orhas R obi nso n show n t hatt he j ury c harge , w hi c h def i ned an “ or gani zat i on” as a l egal ent i t y “w hi c h oper at es i n ort he ac t ivi t i es of w hi c h a ffecti nt er st at e o rf or ei gn c o m m e r c e ,” c o n s tr u c tiv e lya m e n d e d th e in d ic tm e n t. SeeUni t e d S t at e s v. R o b les -V

er tiz , 155 F. 3d 725, 728 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) (obs ervi ng t hat“ [ a] c ons t r uct ive am endm entoc c urs w hen t he go ver nm entc hange s i ts t heor y dur i ng t r i als o a s t o ur ge t he j ur y t o c o nvi c to n ab as i s b r o ader t han t hatc har ge d i n t he i n di ct m en t , or w h en t h e governm en ti s al l ow ed to prove an essenti al el em en tof t he c r i m e o n a n a l t e r nat ive b as i s per m i t t e d byt he st at ut e butnotcha r ge d i n t he in d ictm e n t”) (i n te rn a l qu o ta tion m a rk s a n dcita tion om itted ). Robi ns o n a l s o a r gue s t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d ha ve di s m i s s e d t he i ndi c t m e ntb e c aus e t he G o ve r nm e ntkno w i ngly i nt r o duc e d p e rj ur e d t e s t i m o ny bef ore t h e gran d j u ry i n vi ol ati on o f 1 8 U .S. C
. § 1623

. Th ere i s no evi den ce of
an y del iberate att em pt to m i sl ead the gran d j u ry. E ven i f R obi n son could show t hata w i t nes s know i n gl y pr ovi ded fal se t es t i m ony be f or e t he gr and j ury, R o b in s o n h a s n o t sh o w n th a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t s p o n s o r e ds u c h p e rju r y . Un i t ed S t ate s v. S t rouse , 2 8 6 F .3d 7 6 7 , 7 6 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e o th e ris s u e s R o b in s o n ra is e s o n a p p e a l a r e e ith e rm o o t o ra r e m o r e p r o p e r ly ad dr e s s e d t o t he di s t r i c tc o ur to n r e m and
.N o. 07- 11234

10 CO NC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , w e m u s t r e v e r s e a n dre m a n dfo ran e w tr ia l. CO N VI CT I O N RE VE RSE D , SE N TE N CE VA CA TE D , AN D CA SE R E M A N D E D fo ran e w tr ia l.