FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 27 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 02 54 -J TC-ECS- 1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us JAM ES R. BROWN, 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 Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 23 , 20 11 ) Befo re HULL, MARCUS an d B LACK, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Afte r a jury tri al , Defen dantJames R. Bro wn ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s fo r
m ai l fr au d a ndin te rs ta te tra ns po rta ti on of f or ge d s ecu rit ie s, an d h is res ti tu ti onor de r of

$1 20 ,42 1.5 9. Aft er o ral arg um en t an d re vi ew of th e b rie fs an d re co rd , we affi rm . I. BACKG ROUND A. U.S. Trea su ry Check s Pa ya bl e to Wei ns tei n Defen da ntBro wn’s co nv ic ti on s ar is e fro m ev en ts oc cu rri ng in Aug us t 2 00 3. Tha t m on th , W as hi ng to n M utua l Gro up of F un ds (“ WM Fund s” ) rec ei ve d ane w
acco un t ap pl ic at io n fr om Terry Cla rkof C on su m er Co nc ep ts Inv es tm en ts , an in ve st m en t fi rm . Cl arkwas Def en dantBro wn’s co ll eg e fri en d a ndfin an ci al advi so r. Att ach edto th e ap pl ic at io n wer e two U.S. Treas ury ch eck s, t ot al in g $2 97 ,43 5.8 3, fo r th e acc ou nt ’s op en in g d ep os it . The ch eck s, d at edFeb ru ary 28 , 20 03 , were m ad e p ay ab le to , andall eg ed ly end or se d b y , Fran k Wein st ei n. Cl ark pu rp orte d t o s ub m itth e ap pl ic at io n o n b eh al f of th e al le ge d a cco un t h ol de rs , W ei ns te in , Antho ny Stri ng er, an d Def en da ntBro wn, as “ te na nt s b y en ti ret y ” (the

“ W ei ns te in acco un t” ). The ap pl ic at io n was m ai le d fr om Geor gi a to W M Fund s’ Rho de Isl an d lo cat io n. It r eque st edth atth e acc ou ntbe li nk edto a Cap it ol Cit y Ban k a cco un t he ldso le ly in Br own ’s nam e. Whe n t he two ch eck s u nd erwen t p ro ces si ng , th e b an k t ha t o pe ne d a nd
se rv ic edm

utua l fu ndacco un ts forW M Fu nd s b ecame sus pi ci ou s o f th em an d 2or de redanin ve st ig at io n i nt o t he W ei ns te in acco un t. The in ve st ig at io n re ve al ed

th atW ei ns te in di d n otau th or iz e th e d ep os itof t he two U.S. Treas ury ch eck s. Thu s, the W ei ns te in acco un t was ne ve r fu nd ed
. The in ve st ig at io n o f th e Weins te in ch eck s l edto Defen da ntBro wn’s in di ct m en t i n 2 00 8 fo r hi s 2 00 3 c on du ct . The two -co un t i nd ic tm en t ch arg ed Bro wn wi th (1) att em

pt in g t o c omm itan d c omm it ti ng m ai l fr au d, i n v io la ti on of 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 41 an d 1 34 9 (C ou ntOne) ; an d (2 ) tr an sp orti ng for ge d s ecu rit ie s i n in te rs ta te co m

m erce , invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 2 31 4 (C ou ntTwo). The in di ct m en t d es cri be d B ro wn’s ab ov e co nduc t as a sc he m e to de frau d, as fol lo ws: [Defe nd an t] Jam es R. Bro wn . . . d ev is ed an d parti ci pa te d i n asch em e an d art ifi ce . . . to o b t a i n m on ey fro m th e Uni te d St at es by m ean s of fal se an d frau du le nt pr et en se s an d rep res en ta ti on s to th e effe ct th at [Fra nk W ei ns te in ] au th or iz ed th e es tabl is hm en t of a W M Gro up of Fu nd s m utua l fu nd s accoun t, reg is te red in [Wein st ei n]’ s na m e, on whi ch de fen da nt JAM ES R. BROWN was a reg is te r e d c o -acc ou nt ho ld er, whe n in fact , as th e de fen da nt , JAM ES R. BROWN, th en well kn ew an d be li ev ed , [Wein st ei n] di d no t au th or iz e th e es ta b l is hm en t of a W M Gro up of F un ds acco un t u si ng [W ei ns te in ]’ s n am e. Bro wn p le d n otgu il ty. B. Rule 40 4( b) Ev id ence as to W in ni ck an d Cas si dy Check s Befo re Defe nd an t Br own ’s jury tri al , th e g ov ern m en t fi le d ano ti ce o f in te nt to subm itRu le 40 4( b) ev id en ce: na m el y , Bro wn’s “ two pri orfrau d s ch em es ” th at
oc cu rredin lat e Nov em

be r an d e arl y

Decem be r 20 02 , in vo lv in g c he ck s p ay ab le to 3Alex an de r W in ni ckan d M arkCas si dy. Bro wn i ll eg al ly obt ai ne d t he ch eck s,

fo rg edth e p ay ees ’ si gn atur es , andde po si te d t he ch eck s i n fr au du le ntacco un ts . Bro wn cr eat edth e acc ou nt s b y pro vi di ng a fal se so ci al sec ur it y nu m be r fo r th e pa y ees an d l is ti ng hi m se lf a s “ te na nt s b y en ti ret y ” wit h t he pa y ees . The go ve rn m en t ar gu edth atbo th sch em es , whi chwere n earl y id en ti cal to th e in di ct ed of fen se , wou ldde m on st rat e Bro wn’s i nt en t u nd erl y in g t he ch arg edco nduc t an d sh ow ab se nc e o f m is ta ke or a cci de nt . Bro wn m ov edin li m in e to ex cl ud e th e p ro po se d e vi de nc e fo r two m ai n
reas on s. Fi rs t, the ev id en ce was un ne ces sa ry , pu rs ua ntto Ru le 40 4( b) , bec au se th e g ov ern m en t cl ai m edto ha ve “ ov erwh el m in g” ev id en ce o f Bro wn’s g ui lton th e in di ct edW ei ns te in -ch eckch arg es . Seco nd , th e ev id en ce was ex cl ud ab le un de r Ru le 40 3 b ecau se it s p reju di ci al effe ctsubs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh edit s re le va nc e, an d it s p res en ta ti on wou ldun du ly del ay th e tr ia l. On t he fir stda y

of tria l, b efo re v oi r di re, the di st ric t co urt h el d ahe ari ng on th e ad m is si bi li ty of th e Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce. The go ve rn m en t re it erat edit s pr etria l ar gu m en ts . Fu rth er, the go ve rn m en t ar gu edth atth e ev id en ce was in ex tri cab ly int ertwin edan d t hu s n otsubjec t t o R ul e 4 04 (b ). Defen da ntBro wn al so rep eat edhi s p ret ria l ar gu m en ts . The di stric t co urt i nqui redas t o t he go ve rn m en t’s p ro of th atBro wn 4co m

m it te d t he two pri orfrau d s ch em es . After n ot in g tha t Br own pre vi ou sl y cl ai m edhe ha d n o kno wled ge of t he 20 02 frau du le nttra ns act io ns bu t was hi m se lf th e v ic ti m

of i de nt it y

th eft , th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t t he ev id en ce was adm is si bl e. The d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d tha t t he ev id en ce was “ m or e 4 04 (b ) th an in ex tri cab ly int ertwin ed ” b utde te rm in edth e d an ge r of pre jud ic e was no t g reat er th anth e ev id en ce’s p ro ba ti ve va lu e. Bro wn the n a sk edfora li m it in g i ns tru ct io n, whi chth e d is tri ctco urt ag reedto gi ve . C. Tri al Ev id ence as to W ei ns tei n Acco unt The go ve rn m en t fi rs t ca ll edJo hn Hick ey , an i nv es ti ga ti on s m an ag er fo r th e
co rp or at e fraudun itof t he ba nkth atpro ces se d t he W ei ns te inacco un t o n b eh al f of W M Fu nd s. Hick ey

id en ti fie d a nddi sc us se d aser ie s o f ex hi bi ts . Exh ib it1 was th e Weins te in acco un t ap pl ic at io n. The ap pl ic at io n l is te d W ei ns te in , Stri ng er, an d Def en da ntBro wn as ten an ts by ent ire ty. The app li cat io n bo re the ir p ur

po rte d s ig na tu res an d l is te d t he ir s oc ia l s ecurit y nu m be rs an d b irt h da te s. The acco un t h ol de rs ’ ad dr es s was “ 17 0 M ap le da le Lane , Col le ge Park , Geo rg ia ,” an d t he ap pl ic at io n l is te d t wo p ho ne nu m be rs , on e wit h aCal ifo rn iaarea
co de , andth e o th er wi th a Geo rg iaareaco de . Clark was nam edth e in ve st m en t pr of es si on al . The ap pl ic at io n i nc lu de d avo id edco py of a ch eckforCap it ol Cit y Ban k. Th e ch eckst at edth e acc ou ntwas o wne d b y “ a Ja m es Bro wn, 1 70 Map le
5Dale Lane inCo ll eg e Park, Geo rg ia .”

Exh ib it s 2 an d 3 were two U.S. Treas ury ch eck s, wh ic h wer e p ay ab le to W ei ns te in an d wh ic h h adbe enatt ach edto th e Weins te in acco un t ap pl ic at io n fo r de po si t. The ch eck s, p ur po rte dl y en do rs edby W ei ns te in , to ta le d $ 29 7,4 35 .83
. Dur in g t he co ur se of Hi ck ey ’s in ve st ig at io n o f th e Weins te in acco un t, Hi ck ey
co nc lu de d t ha t Wein st ei n h adno t au th or iz edth e ch eck s t o b e d ep os it edin to th e W ei ns te in acco un t. The acco un t was th us no t fu nd ed
. The go ve rn m en t al so cal le d Wein st ei n’s ac co un ta ntGreg ory Laco m be to te st ify. Laco m

be ha d p ro vi de d t ax an d fi na nc ia l co ns ul ti ng servi ces to W ei ns te in fro m 19 90 un ti l Wein st ei n’s d eath. In 20 02 , Laco m be ass is te d Wein st ei n i n ob ta in in g t ax refu ndch eck s fo r th e 1 97 7, 1 97 8, an d 1 97 9 t ax y ears . Alth ou gh th e
or ig in al refu ndch eck s wer e is su edan d m ai le d a ro un d F eb ru ary orMarc h 2 00 3, W ei ns te in ne ve r rec ei ve d t he m . Lacom be id en ti fie d t he pre vi ou sl y in tro du ced Exh ib it s 2 an d 3 as Wein st ei n’s t ax refu ndch eck s, d at edFeb ru ary 28 , 20 03 , for ta x years 1 97 7 a nd19 78 . Lacom be ha d re po rte d t he m is si ng ch eck s t o t he IRS,
an d t he IRS re is su edth em lat er tha t year, on e b y

di rectde po si t an d o ne by hard
co py. W ei ns te in rece iv edth e rei ss ue d c he ck s. Laco m be tes ti fie d t ha t h e was pe rs on al ly fam il ia r wit h Wein st ei n’s si gn atur e. Laco m

be st at edth atth e si gn atur es onth e two ori gi na l U.S. Treas ury 6ch eck s an d t he W ei ns te in acco un t ap pl ic at io n wer e n otW ei ns te in ’s. Howev er, the

en do rs em en t o n t he ha rdco py reis su edch eck , whi ch was i nt ro du cedas a n e xh ib it , was W ei ns te in ’s si gn atur e. Add it io na ll y , Laco m be tes ti fie d t ha t t he W ei ns te in ap pl ic at io n l is te d t he wron g s oc ia l s ecu rity nu m be r fo r W ei ns te in
. Nex t, IR S co or di na to r Glo riaJac ks on tes ti fie d t ha t t wo U.S. Treas ury ch eck s, t ot al in g $ 29 7,4 35 .83 , were i ss ue d fo r ta x re fu nd s t o Wein st ei n i n F eb ru ary 20 03
. The y

were l at er ca nc el le d, an d n ew ch eck s wer e is su edin May andJu ly 20 03
. D. Tri al Ev id ence as to W in ni ck an d Cas si dy Acco unts The res t o f th e g ov ern m en t’s p res en ta ti on foc us edontwo othe r frau du le nt
acco un ts crea te d b y

Defen dantBro wn. Go ve rn m en t wi tn es s Hi ck ey tes ti fie d t ha t he reco gn iz edBro wn’s n am e dur in g h is in ve st ig at io n o f th e Weins te in acco un t fro m two ot he r W M Fund s ac co un t ap pl ic at io ns . Hick ey id en ti fie d t wo ex hi bi ts as W M Fu nd s ac co un t ap pl ic at io ns : o ne inth e n am e o f Bro wn an d M arkCas si dy,
an d o ne in th e n am e o f Bro wn an d Al ex an de r W in ni ck
. Bo th ap pl ic at io ns na m ed th e acc ou ntho ld ers “ te na nt s- by-ent ire ty.” As t o t he W in ni ck

acco un t, Hi ck ey

tes ti fie d a s fo ll ows . In l at e Nov em be r 20 02 , th e Winn ic k a cco un t was op en edwith WM Fu nd s. Cl arksubm it te d t he ap pl ic at io n o n b eh al f of

th e acc ou ntho ld ers . The ap pl ic at io n l is te d t he same

7acco un t h ol de r ad dr es s an d p ho ne nu m be rs as t he W ei ns te inacco un t. It a ls o pr ov id edW in ni ck ’s andBro wn’s s oc ia l s ecu rit y nu m be rs . The Win ni ckacco un t
was fir stli nk edto a Cal ifo rn iabankacco un t i n t he na m e o f All Am eri can Lega l Sy st em s, Br own ’s bu si ne ss . Later, the acco un t was li nk edto Bro wn’s Capi to l Ci ty Bankacco un t. On ly Brownha d c he ck -wri ti ng pri vi le ge s o n t he W in ni ck
acco un t. The op en in g d ep os itfor th e Winn ic k a cco un t was a ch eckpu rp orte dl y writ te n b y

W in ni ckfor$9 ,82 5.0 0. Ho wev er, l ik e th e Weins te in acco un t, the
acco un t was ne ve r fund edbe cau se a ba nkin ve st ig at io n re ve al edth atth e ch eck
was alt eredan d Win ni ckha d n otau th or iz edth e ch eck ’s dep os it
. W in ni ckhi m se lf t es ti fie d. He d idno t kno w Defen da ntBro wn an d h adno t
au th or iz edanap pl ic at io n fo r anacco un t atW M Fund s. Whensh own a ch eck fro m hi s ac co un t, Winn ic k t es ti fie d t ha t h e h adno t wri tt enth e ch eckan d h adno t gi ve n a nyon e p erm is si on to writ e it . The s oc ia l s ecu rit y nu m be r li st edas h is on th e WM Fun ds acco un t ap pl ic at io n was no t, i n fa ct , hi s. Gov ern m en t wi tn es s Hi ck ey als o t es ti fie d abo utth e Cas si dy acco un t, wh ic h
was op en edwith WM Fu nd s i n Dec em be r 20 02 . Clark p ur

po rte d t o s ub m itth e ap pl ic at io n o n b eh al f of

th e acc ou ntho ld ers . The ap pl ic at io n was pu rp orte dl y si gn edby Cass id y

an d B ro wn. The ap pl ic at io n l is te d B ro wn’s an d C as si dy’ s
so ci al sec ur it y

nu m be rs , as wel l as th e sa m e acc ou ntho ld er ad dr es s an d p ho ne 8nu m

be rs as t he W ei ns te in an d Win ni ckacco un ts . Atta ch edto th e ap pl ic at io n was
a v oi de d c he ckforanacco un t o wne d b y All Am eri can Lega l Syste m s; th e ch eck bo re o ne of t he same ph on e num be rs as p ro vi de d fo r th e Weins te in acco un t. Lik e th e Winn ic k a cco un t, the Cas si dy acco un t was ori gi na ll y li nk edto All Am eri can Leg al Sy st em s’ Cal ifo rn iaba nkacco un t b efo re b ei ng li nk edto Bro wn’s Capi to l Ci ty Bankacco un t. Bro wn was th e o nl y pe rs on with c he ck -wri ti ng pri vi le ge s o n th e Cas si dy acco un t. Acco rd in g t o Hi ck ey , th e o pe ni ng de po si t fo r th e Cas si dy acco un t was a U.S. Treas ury

ch eckfor$7 7,7 99 .04
. The fi rs t re co rd edact iv it y on th e Cas si dy 1
acco un t was a $4 0,0 00 .00 wire tra ns fer t o B ro wn’s Capi to l Ci ty Bankacco un t i n Ja nu ary 20 03 . Fol lo win g t ha t t ran sf er, a s eri es of c he ck s m ad e p ay ab le to Bro wn pe rs on al ly, to Cla rk& Ass oc ia te s, an d t o v ari ou s o th er i nd iv idua ls de pl et edth e Cas si dy acco un t t o aba la nc e o f $6 09 .34 . The s ig na tu re o n a ll of t he ch eck s was th e si gn atur e WM Fun ds ha d o n fi le forBro wn. Sh erri Cas si dy, MarkCas si dy’ s ex -wif e, al so tes ti fie d abo utth e Cas si dy
acco un t. Fo r th e 1 99 7 t ax y ear, t he th en -m arri edco up le fil edth ei r ta xe s t og ethe r. The y an ti ci pa te d atax refu ndof app ro xi m at el y $7 5,0 00 bu t n ev er re cei ve d t he

L ater in the trial, g overnme nt witness L ou Ann Finke lstein testified that the che ck wa s 1 made pa yable to Cassidy

and his then-wif

e. 9or ig in al refu ndch eck . The co up le th enfil eda cl ai m with t he IRS fo r a rei ss ua nc e of th e ref un d c he ck . Becau se th ey were m arri edfor

ne arl y fif te eny ears be fo re th ei r di vo rce, M s. Ca ss id y was fa m il ia r with M r. Cas si dy’ s s ig na tu re. Mr. Cas si dy’ s p ur

po rte d s ig na tu re o n t he Cas si dy acco un t ap pl ic at io n was no t h is si gn atur e. The s ig na tu re o n t he rei ss ue d re fundch eck , ho wev er, was Mr. Cas si dy’ s s ig na tu re. Alt ho ug h Def

en da ntBro wn ea rli er h adfil eda m ot io n i n l im in e, he di d n ot
co nt em po ran eo us ly objec t t o t he Ru le 40 4( b) tes ti m on y ab ou t t he W in ni ckan d Cas si dy acco un ts . E. Othe r Tri al Ev id ence The go ve rn m en t ca ll edLouAnn Fin ke ls te in , an a ge ntwith t he Treas ury In sp ect orGene ral forTax Ad m in is tra ti on . Agen t Fi nk el st ei n’s jo b was to in ve st ig at e al le ga ti on s o f frau d i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e IRS , andsh e was ass ig ne d to Defen dantBro wn’s ca se . After i nv es ti ga ti ng , Agen t Fi nk el st ei n d et erm in ed th atBro wn was a su sp ectin th e cas e an d a rres te d h im inCal ifo rn iainAug us t 20 08
. Afte r Age ntFin ke ls te in arre st edhi m , Bro wn wai ve d h is Mi ran darig ht s an d
an swe reda se rie s o f qu es ti on s fr om Agen t Fi nk el st ei n. Bro wn s ta te d t ha t h is pu rp orte d s ig na tu re o n t he W ei ns te in ap pl ic at io n was hi s, b uthe di d n otkn ow 10W ei ns te in , Cas si dy, or W in ni ck
. Bro wn ad m it te d tha t h e h addo ne bu si ne ss with

Cl arkan d was fam il ia r wit h t he m utua l fu nd s. Fi na ll y , Bro wn cl ai m edth at W ei ns te in ha d s to le n h is id en ti ty andth atBro wn n eed edto tal k t o C la rk
. Age ntFin ke ls te in als o o bt ai ne d B ro wn’s Ca li fo rn iadri ve r’s li cen se with h is si gn atur e o n i t. The li cen se was a dm it te d a s anex hi bi t, i n a dd it io n t o o th er do cu m en ts , m os tl y

co urt-r el at ed , th atBro wn h adsi gn edin Agen t Fi nk el st ei n’s pr es en ce o n t he da y

of h is arre st . Nex t, Ag en t Fi nk el st ei n t es ti fie d abo utth e Weins te in , Cas si dy, andW in ni ck
acco un t ap pl ic at io ns . On th e Weins te in acco un t, Defe nd an t Br own was t he on ly ap pl ic an t fo r who m

th e n am e, so ci al sec ur it y nu m be r, an d d at e o f bi rth all
m at ch ed . Agen t Fi nk el st ei n’s t es ti m on y ab ou t t he Cas si dy andW in ni ck tra ns act io ns lar ge ly repea te d e arl ie r te st im on y ab ou t t he acco un ts . As to th e Cas si dy acco un t, Ag en t Fi nk el st ei n d idno t h av e a h an dwr it in g e xp ertve rif y th at th e si gn atur es on th e ch eck s an d d oc um en ts were Br own ’s, bec au se ba se d o n t he ir ap pe aran ce, the y

lo ok edth e sa m e as Bro wn’s s ig na tu re o n h is li cen se . Age nt Fi nk el st ei n a ls o t es ti fie d t ha t al l o f th e U.S. Treas ury ch eck s atis su e in th e in ve st ig at io n b el on ge d t o C al ifo rn iatax pa y ers . Defen da ntBro wn d idno t o bjec t t o Ag en t Fi nk el st ei n’s t es ti m on y
co nc ern in g t he Cas si dy andW in ni ckacco un ts . Howev er, aft er Ag en t 11Fi nk el st ei n’s d ire cttes ti m on y , Bro wn re qu es te d ali m it in g i ns tru ct io n o n t he

ev id en ce’s p erm is si bl e u se s. The di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury acco rd in gl y , st at in g: Mem be rs of th e jury, Defen d a n t is on tri al on ly fo r th e of fen se s sp eci fic al ly ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t. And y ou wil l ha ve th e in di ct m en t wit h y ou du rin g y ou r de li be rat io ns . Now, y ou h a v e he ard ev id en ce du r in g th e te st im on y of Ms
. Fi nk el st ei n te nd in g to sh ow th at a t s o me ot he r ti m e th an th e st at em en ts st at ed in th e in di ct m en t of th is cas e, th at th e Defen da nt al le ge dl y co m m it te d act s si m il ar to th e act s th at are ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t. Now, y ou m ay co ns id er th at ev id en ce no t to pr ov e th at th e D e f

e n dant di d th e act s ch arg ed in th e cas e, in th is cas e, bu t on ly to pr ov e th e Defen da nt ’s st a t e of m in d. Tha t is th at th e Defen da nt act e d w i t h th e ne ces sa ry in te nt an d no t th ro ug h acci de nt or m is ta ke
. Now, th eref

or e, whe n y ou are co ns id eri ng th e ev id en ce, if y ou fin d fir st th at th e g o v e rn men t pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at th e Defe n d a n t di d in fact co m m it th e act s ch arg ed in th e in di ct m en t an d, two , th at th e Defen da nt al so co m m it te d si m il ar act s at ot he r ti m es , th en y ou m ay c o n s i de r th e si m il ar act s in de ci di ng whe th er th e Defen da nt co m m it te d th e act s ch a r g e d in th is cas e wil lfu ll y an d no t th ro ug h acci de ntor m is ta ke
. F. Bro w n’s Mot io n fo r J udg m ent o f Acqui tta l a nd Defe ns e Cas e Afte r th e g ov ern m en t re st edan d o ut si de th e jury’ s p res en ce, Defe nd an t Bro wn m ov edfora jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he m ot io n. Whe n t he jury returne d t o t he co urtro om , Bro wn m ad e h is Ru le 29 m ot io n i n o pe n
co urt. The co urt ag ai n d en ie d i t. Defen da ntBro wn t he n p res en te d h is cas e, whi chco ns is te d o f on e ex hi bi t: a 12cert ifi eddo cu m en t fr om th e Geo rg iaDepartment o f Driv er Se rv ic es de pi ct in g t he ph ot o fr om

an d i nf orm at io n fo r Cl ark ’s dri ve r’s li cen se . After r es ti ng , Bro wn
ren ewedhi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al , whi ch th e d is tri ctco urt ag ai n de ni ed
. G. Ju ry Ins truc tio ns W it ho utob

jecti onfro m

eithe r pa rty, the di st ric t co urt i ns tru ct edth e jury as fo ll ows . Firs t, the di st ric t co urt re it erat edit s p rev io us li m it in g i ns tru ct io n o n t he pe rm is si bl e u se s o f th e Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce. Sec on d, i t i ns tru ct edth e jury onth e el em en ts requi redto co nv ic t Br own of v io la ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 1, Co un t On e: [(1 )] tha t t he de fen da ntkn owi ng ly dev is edor p art ic ip at edin a sc he m e to de frau d o r fo r ob ta in in g m on ey or p ro pe rty by

m ean s o f fal se or frau du le ntpre te ns es , rep res en ta ti on s, o r pr om is es [; ( 2) ] th atth e fal se orfrau du le ntpre te ns es , rep res en ta ti on s, o r pr om is es rel at edto a m at eri al fact [; ( 3) ] th atth e d efen da ntact edwil lfu ll y with a n i nt en t t o de frau d[ ;] and[(4 )] tha t t he de fen dantus edth e Uni te d S ta te s Po st al Serv ic e b y

m ai li ng or b y

cau si ng to be m ai le d s om e m at te r or th in g fo r th e p ur

po se of e xe cu ti ng th e sc he m e to de frau d. The di st ric t co urt el ab or at edth at“ [t]o a ctwith t he in te ntto de frau d m ean s t o a ct kn owi ng ly andwith t he sp eci fic in te ntto de cei ve or c he atso m eo ne [,] or di na ril y fo r th e p ur

po se of c au si ng so m e fi nanc ia l l os s t o a no th er, o r br in gi ng . . . so m e fin an ci al ga in to on es el f.” Thi rd , as t o C ou ntTwo, th e d is tri ctco urt i ns tru ct edth e jury thatth e el em en ts requi redto co nv ic t Br own of v io la ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 2 31 4

13were: [(1 )] [That ] th e d efen da nttra ns po rte d o r cau se d t o b e tr an sp orte d i n

in te rs ta te co m

m erce it em s o f st ol enpro pe rty or i te m s o f co nv ert ed pr op ert y as d es cri be d i n t he in di ct m en t[; (2) ] th atth e it em s h ada va lu e o f $5 ,00 0 o r m or e[; an d (3 )], th atth e d efen danttra ns po rte d the it em s wi ll fu ll y

an d wi th kn owl ed ge th atth e se cu rit ie s h adbe enst ol en orco nv ert ed
. 2 Ult im at el y , th e jury con vi ct edBro wn o n b ot h c ou nt s. H. The Res tit uti on Cal cul at io n a nd the Sente nci ng Hea ri ng Defen da ntBro wn’s Pre se nt en ce In ve st ig at io n R ep ort (“ PSI” ) rec omm en de d
res ti tu ti on of $ 12 0,4 21 .59
. The PSI arriv edat t hi s fi gu re b y co m bi ni ng fou r fig ur es : $ 12 ,67 1.3 2 i n c he ck s fo rg edfro m W in ni ck ’s acco un t; $7 7,7 99 .04 fro m a U.S. Treas ury

refu ndch eckpay ab le to th e Cas si dys; $ 9,8 41 .00 fro m a U.S. Treas ury refu ndch eckpa y ab le to Antho ny Stri ng er; an d $ 20 ,11 0.0 3 fr om a U.S. Treas ury refu ndch eckpa y ab le to W ei ns te in , whi ch was ath irdtax refu ndch eck
se ntto W ei ns te in . The i nd ic tm en t m en ti on edno ne of t he se ch eck s. Bro wn o bjec te d t o t he PSI’s res ti tu ti on cal cu la ti on . He con ced edth atth e

The district cour

t’s instruction on this count mi rror ed the g overnme nt’s proposed 2 instruction submit ted prior to trial. How ever , while the jury was e x cused a

nd the district court was preparingfor a

rec ess, the g overnme nt stated that the cha rg e should be in ac corda

nce w ith “the third subsec tion of [§ 2314] ,” which doe s not contain the $5,000-or -more va lue eleme nt. Nonethele ss, following the rec ess and a fter ha ving a n opportunity

to reviewthe cour

t’s proposed jury instructions, the g overnme nt stated that it “had a n opportunity

to reviewthe instructions and the g overnme nt has no objections.” The g overnme nt also did not object to the stated cha rg e befor e the jury

retire d. 14Strin ge r an d Wein st ei n c he ckam ou nt s, re sp ect iv el y $9 ,84 1.0 0 a nd$2 0,1 10 .03 , were co rrec tl y

in cl ud edinth e cal cu la ti on . Howev er, Bro wn ar gu edth atth e W in ni ckan d C as si dy chec k a m ou nt s, re sp ect iv el y $1 2,6 71 .32 an d $ 77 ,79 9.0 4, were i m pr op erl y in cl ud edbe cau se th os e lo ss es fel l o ut si de of t he di sc ret e sc he m e ch arg edinth e in di ct m en t. At the sen te nc in g h eari ng , Bro wn re it erat edhi s ar gu m en ts onth e res ti tu ti on cal cu la ti on . The g ov ern m en t re sp on de d tha t t he Cas si dy andW in ni cktra ns act io ns
were n otin cl ud edin th e in di ct m en t b ecau se th ey were o ut si de th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Non ethe le ss , th e g ov ern m en t ar gu edres ti tu ti on forth es e acc ou nt s
was du e u nd er thi s C ou rt’s p rece de nt . The di stric t co urt o ve rru le d B ro wn’s o bjec ti on . The co urt fo un d t ha t “ th e
ev id en ce s ho ws t ha t t he sch em e in cl ud edth e Cas si dy andW in [n ]ickch eck s, t he way of a cco m pl is hi ng th atwas the same.” Con cl ud in g t ha t t he ap pl ic ab le law

“ ho ld s t ha t you c anawardres ti tu ti on forot he r vi ct im s o f th e sa m e sc he m e, ev en th ou gh itwasn ’t th e sc he m e th atwas t he subjec t o f th e in di ctm en t,” t he di st ric t
co urt fo un d t he res ti tu ti onowedwas $ 12 0,4 21 .59
. Afte r he ari ng th e p art ie s’ arg um en ts on th e 1 8 U.S.C. § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s, t he di st ric t co urt s en te nc edBro wn t o 3 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t o n b ot h c ou nt s, t o b e
se rv edco nc urren tl y . The d is tri ctco urt i m po se d ares ti tu ti on ord er o f $1 20 ,42 1.5 9.
15Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed
. II . DISCUSSI ON

A. Rule 40 4( b) Ev id ence On ap pe al , Defen da ntBro wn ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y adm it te d t he Ru le 40 4( b) ev id en ce. Fed eral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 04 (b ) pr ov id es th at

“ [e]vi de nc e o f ot he r cri m es , wron gs , or a ct s” is in adm is si bl e to pro ve th e de fen da nt ’s badch arac te r in ord er t o s ho w con du ctin co nf orm it y th erewi th
. Howev er, s uc h e vi de nc e is adm is si bl e fo r ot he r pu rp os es , su ch as t o p ro ve in te nt
orab se nc e o f m is ta ke . Fed . R. Evi d. 4 04 (b ). Evenif o th erwi se adm is si bl e, th e
ev id en ce m ay

st il l b e ex cl ud ed“ if i ts pro ba ti ve va lu e is subs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by the da ng er o f un fai r pr ejud ic e . . . or b y co ns id erat io ns of u ndue de la y .” Fed
. R. Evi d. 4 03
. A li m it in g i ns tru ct io n c andi m in is h a ny un fai r pr ejud ic e cau se d b y th e ev id en ce’s ad m is si on . See Un it edSta te s v . Spo erk e, 56 8 F .3d12 36 , 12 51 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9)
. W e o rd in ari ly revi ew fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n t he di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary
ru li ng . Uni te d S ta te s v . Mat th ews , 43 1 F .3d12 96 , 13 11 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Howev er, “ th e o ve rru li ng of am ot io n i n l im in e d oe s n otsu ffi ce” f orpre se rv at io n of anob jecti on on ap pe al . Uni te d S ta te s v . Kho ury , 90 1 F .2d94 8, 9 66 (11 th Cir
. 19 90 ). Here, Defe nd an t Br own ob jecte d t o t he 40 4( b) ev id en ce i n h is pre tri al
16m ot io n i n l im in e b utfai le d t o re ne w hi s o bjec ti on when th e ev id en ce was

pr es en te d a t t ria l. Bec au se Bro wn fa il edto pre se rv e h is cla im of e vi de nt ia ry

erro r,
we wou ldrev ie w on ly for p la in erro r. See i d. 3 Inan y ev en t, u nd er an y

st an da rdof r ev ie w, we con cl ud e th e d is tri ctco urt
co m m it te d n o e rro r in adm it ti ng th e 4 04 (b ) ev id en ce. Fi rs t, the W ei ns te in an d Cas si dy chec ks were re le va ntto anis su e o th er tha n B ro wn’s ch arac te r: p ro vi ng bo th Bro wn’s i nt en t wi th res pe ctto th e ch arg edoff en se an d t he ab se nc e o f
m is ta ke . Bro wn co nt es te d t he is su e o f in te nt , ass ert in g t ha t h e was a vi ct im of id en ti ty the ft i n t he W ei ns te in tra ns act io n. Yethi s cl ai m was b el ie d b y

th e
rem ark ab le si m il ari ty between th e Cas si dy andW in ni cktra ns act io ns an d t he W ei ns te in tra ns act io n, n otto m en ti on th atBro wn was th e o nl y acco un t h ol de r in al l t hr ee ac co un ts with c he ck -wri ti ng pri vi le ge s. Th e Cas si dy andW in ni ck tra ns act io ns were re la ti ve ly clo se in ti m e to th e Weins te in tra ns act io n, h av in g
oc cu rredles s tha n ay ear e arl ie r. The 4 04 (b ) ev id en ce was hi gh ly pro ba ti ve on th e is su e o f Bro wn’s i nt en t. To establish plain err or, the de fenda nt must show that “(1) ther e is an e rror ; (2) that is 3 plain or obvious; [ and] (3) af fec t[ ed] the defe ndant’s substantial rights in that itwas pre judicial and not har

mless.” United States v. Hoff man-Va ile, 568 F.3d 1335, 1340 ( 11th Cir. 2009) (interna l quotation marks omitted). I f that showingis met, we must then deter mine whether

the err or ser iously

aff ecte d the fa irness, integrity , or public re putation of the district court proce eding s. United States v. Br adley , 644 F.3d 1213, 1293 ( 11th Cir. 2011). I f so, only then will we consider

whether the def endant is entitled to relief . I d.
17Seco nd , pri orto adm it ti ng th e ev id en ce, the di st ric t co urt i nqui redas t o

whe th er the go ve rn m en t h adsu ffi ci en t p ro of of t he ex tri ns ic act s. Th ird , th e di st ric t co urt g av e a l im it in g i ns tru ct io n t o the jury, whi ch cu red“ [a]ny po ss ib le
un fai r pr ejud ic e” p os edby the 40 4( b) ev id en ce. See Sp oe rk e, 56 8 F .3dat 1 25 1. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d n o e rro r, pl ai n o r othe rwis e, by adm it ti ng ev id en ce o f th e Cas si dy andW in ni cktra ns act io ns . B. Suff

ic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence at T ri al Defen da ntBro wn co nt en ds th atth e ev id en ce p res en te d t o t he jury was in su ffi ci en t t o s us ta in hi s t wo co nv ic ti on s. W e rev ie w de n ov o c ha ll en ge s t o t he
su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Lang fo rd , 64 7 F .3d13 09 , 13 19 (11 th Ci r. 20 11 ). W e “ ta k[ e] the 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
an d d raw[] all reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav orof t he jury’ s v erd ic t.” Id . A
co nv ic ti on m

us t b e uph el d u nl es s a r at io na l fa ct -fi nd er co ul d n otha ve fou ndth e de fen da ntgu il ty und er an y reas on ab le co ns tru ct io n o f th e ev id en ce. Id
. 1. Co nv ic ti on forMai l Fr au d Bro wn ar gu es th atth ere was no ev id en ce i nd ic at in g h e act edwith i nt en t t o de frau d o r he kn ew th e tr an sa ct io n was frau du le nt . Howev er, v ie win 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 an d t he jury’ s v erd ic t, we
co nc lu de th e ev id en ce was m or e th ansu ffi ci en t t o s up po rt B ro wn’s co nv ic ti on on 18m ai l fr au d i n C ou ntOne.

The go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce d em on st rat edst rik in g s im il ari ti es am on g t he W ei ns te in , W in ni ck , andCas si dy tran sa ct io ns . Bro wn was th e o ne co ns ta ntth read in all th ree WM Fu nd s ac co un t ap pl ic at io ns . Butth e si m il ari ti es were m uc h gr eat er tha n B ro wn p ur

po rti ng to be “ te na nt s b y

en ti ret y ” wit h t he vi ct im pa y ees of st ol enan d fo rg edsec ur it ie s i n e ach acco un t. All th ree t ran sa ct io ns oc cu rred wit hi n asp anof l es s t ha n ay ear a ndin vo lv edfrau du le nt ly obt ai ne d c he ck s, an d th e Weins te in an d C as si dy acco un ts bo th in vo lv edU.S. Treas ury tax refu nd ch eck s. Ev enth e m an ne r in whi ch th e acc ou nt s wer e es tabl is he d was id en ti cal —ea ch acco un t was op en edwith t he same m utua l fu ndco m

pa ny (WM Fu nd s) ; l in ke d t o B ro wn’s Capi to l Ci ty Bankacco un t; ga ve on ly Brownch eck
writ in g p riv il eg es ; l is te d t he same acco un t h ol de r ad dr es s an d p ho ne nu m be rs ;
subm it te d b y

th e sa m e p ers on , Cla rk ; an d c orrect ly pro vi de d o nl y Bro wn’s si gn atur e, da te of b irth, an d s oc ia l s ecu rit y nu m be r. Mo reo ve r, Bro wn s ta te d t ha t h e d idno t kno w th e n am edbe ne fic ia rie s o n th e ch eck s an d was infacta vi ct im of i de nt ity

th eft . Yet Bro wn was th e o nl y
acco un t h ol de r who st oo d t o b en efi t fr om th e b en efi ci ari es ’ ch eck s. In de ed , inth e Cas si dy acco un t, Br own di d b en efi t, fo r so m e o f th e ch eck s wri tt enon th e acc ou nt
were m ad e p ay ab le to Bro wn h im se lf. Th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atth e o nl y ot he r 19“ te na nt s” on th es e acc ou nt s wer e al l u nkno win g v ic ti m s. A reas on ab le jury co ul d

us e ev id en ce o f th e p rio r Cas si dy andW in ni cktra ns act io ns an d o f Bro wn’s ap pa ren t u se of t he il l-g ot te n fu nd s t o s up po rt a n i nf eren ce o f in te ntto de frau d o n th e ch arg edW ei ns te in co nduc t. Inad di ti on , th e jury cou ldreas on ab ly rely on th is
ev id en ce t o n eg at e Bro wn’s d efen se at t ria l t ha t h e was hi m se lf the vi ct im of id en ti ty the ft. 2. Sect io n 2 31 4 C on vi ct io n fo r In te rs ta te Tran sp orta ti on of F or ge d Secu rit ie s Bro wn ar gu es hi s co nv ic ti on forin te rs ta te tra ns po rta ti onof f or ge d
se cu rit ie s, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 23 14 , was n otsupp orte d b y an y ev id en ce 4 th athe kn ew th e se cu rit ie s wer e st ol enor f or ge d andth atth e ch eck s h ada va lu e o f $5 ,00 0 o r gr eat er atth e ti m e h e co m m it te d the cri m e. W e are no t p ers ua de d.

The statute r eads in salient pa rt: 4 Whoever transports, transmits, or transfe rs in interstate or fore ign commerc e any g oods, war es, merc handise, securities or money , of the value of $5,000 or more, knowingthe same to have bee n stolen, conver ted or take n by

fra ud; or W hoever , having devised or intended to devise any scheme or artifice t o defr aud, or for obtaining money or proper ty by m ea ns of false or fra udulent prete nses, repr esentations, or promises, transports or cause s to be transporte d, or induces any person or persons to trave l in, or to be transporte d in interstate or fore ign commerc e in the execution or con ce al m en t of a scheme or artifice to defr aud that person or those persons of

money or prope rty

havinga valueof $5,000 or more ; or Whoever, with unlawful or fra udulent intent, tr a

n s p o r ts in in ter s ta te o r f o r e ign commerc e any falsely made, forg ed, altere d, or counter feited securities or tax stamps, knowingthe same to have bee n falsely made, f org ed, alter ed, or c ounterfe ited . . . Shall be fined unde r this titl e or imprisoned not morethan ten year s, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 2314. 20As t o B ro wn’s kno wled ge , we con cl ud e, fo r th e sa m e rea so ns st at edab ov e,

th atth e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t fo r th e jury to i nf er Br own ’s kn owl ed ge th atth e
se cu rit ie s wer e st ol enor f or ge d. As t o t he $5 ,00 0- or -m or e v al ue ele m en t, we m us t co ns tru e, as a pr el im in ary 5
m at te r, th e st atut ory

m ean in g o f “ va lu e” b efo re we ca n d et erm in e whe th er the
ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t. The st atut ory in te rp ret at io n i ss ue , on e o f fi rs t i m pr es si on in th is cir cu it , is whet he r th e v al ue ele m en t i s s at is fie d b y th e am ou ntpa y ab le writ te n o n t he face of the ch eck s, wh enth e ch eck s t he m se lv es were ca nc el le d
m on th s b efo re the y

were tran sp orte d i n i nt ers ta te co m m erce an d wer e th us
worth le ss . W e b eg in with t he lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e. See Un it edSta te s v . Acos ta , 42 1 F.3 d 1 19 5, 1 19 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . The rel ev an t p orti on of § 23 14 requi res th e ch eck s t o h av e a v al ue of a t l eas t $ 5,0 00 , alt ho ug h § 23 14 do es no t d efi ne what
su ffi ces for

va lu e. Howev er, as § 2 31 4 i s wi th in Ch ap te r 11 3 (“ St ol enPro pe rty”) of Tit le 18 of the U.S. Cod e, th atch ap te r’s de fin it io n s ect io n, § 23 11 , is in st ru ct iv e. Sect io n 2 31 1 p ro vi de s tha t v al ue is “ th e fac e, par, or m ark etva lu e, The g overnme nt’s brief a rgues that the jury

could have convicted B rown on the third 5 subsection of 18 U.S.C. § 2314, which does not c ontain a minimum value amount. Howeve r, the jury was instructe d, without gove rnment objec tion and based on the g overnme nt’s orig inal reque st to charg e, that the g overnme nt was re quired to prove that the che cks had a value of $5,000 or more. We thus examine the suffic iency of the e vidence in light of the jury instruction.
21whi ch ev er i s t he gre at es t.” Al th ou gh “ face ” v al ue is no t fu rth er d efi ne d, we h av e

li tt le tro ub le co nc lu di ng th atth e p la in m ean in g o f fac e v al ue is th e v al ue in di cat ed
on th e fac e o f th e in st rum en t. Alt ho ug h we h av e n otsqua rel y ad dr es se d wh atface va lu e m ean s u nd er § 2 31 1, t he Fif

th Cir cu itha s, re ach in g the same con cl us io n. In Uni te d S ta te s v . Onyieg o, t he Fif

th Cir cu itco ns id eredde fen da ntIss ac Bi eg on ’s cha ll en ge to hi s § 2 31 4 c on vi ct io n fo r a co ns pi racy to t raff ic in st ol enair li ne ti ck et s o n t he gro un d th atth e g ov ern m en t fa il edto est ab li sh th e “ ‘$50 00 -o r-m or e’ j ur is di ct io na l el em en t.” 2 86 F.3d24 9, 2 51 (5t h C ir. 2 00 2) . One co -co ns pi rat or ha d s to le n b la nk ai rli ne ti ck et s an d g iv enth em to an ot he r co -co ns pi rat or , who us edhi s co m pu te r to fil l i n t he pri ces . Id. at25 2. Defe nd an t Bi eg on th enso ldth e fo rg edti ck et s th ro ug h h is tra ve l ag en cy . Id. At t ria l, the go ve rn m en t re li edon th e fac e v al ue of th e ti ck et s t o s at is fy

th e juri sd ic ti on al ele m en t. Id . at 2 53 . On ap pe al , Bie go n arg ue d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t co ul d n otrel y on face va lu e b ecau se th e fac e v al ue
was “ m ad e up.” Id. (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. The Fif th Cir cu itreject edBie go n’s ar gu m en t. Aft er n ot in g § 23 11 ’s de fin it io n o f va lu e, th e co urt s ta te d t ha t i t h adacce pt edbe fo re the face va lu e o f

“ fil le d i n b la nkm on ey

ord ers ” an d p rev io us ly referre d t o fa ce v al ue as “ th e fi gu re writ te n o n, an d t he cred itgi ve n fo r, [a] wron gf ul ly obt ai ne d n ot e.” Id . at 2 53 –5 4
22(ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Wrig ht , 66 1 F .2d60 , 61 (5t h C ir. 1 98 1) ; Un it edSta te s v .

Ro bi ns on , 55 3 F .2d42 9, 4 31 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7) ). The co urt t he n c on si de redth e st atut e’s pl ai n m ean in g, d efi ni ng face va lu e as “ th e v al ue in di cat edon th e fac e o f
anin st ru m en t.” Id . at 2 54 (qu ot in g M E R R IA M -W E B S T E R ’ S D IC T IO N A R Y 81 2 (3 d ed . 19 93 )) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Decla rin g tha t “ [w]e see n o n eedto de pa rt f ro m th e p la in m ean in g o f th e st atut e in th is cas e,” the Fif th Cir cu ithe ld th at“ [t]he ‘ face ’ va lu e o f a s to le n g oo d i s t he va lu e aff ix edto th e fac e o f th at go od .” Id
. Alt ho ug h t he Fif

th Cir cu itis th e o nl y

cir cu itto de fin e fac e v al ue di rect ly
un de r § 2 31 1, t he Nin th Cir cu itha s i nt erp ret edface va lu e u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 64 1’s
m at eri al ly equ iv al en t d efi ni ti on of v al ue . See Un it edSta te s v . Sarg en t, 5 04 F.3d 6 76 7 (9 thCir . 20 07 ). Sarg en t i nv ol ve d ach al le ng e to a co nv ic ti onforth eftof publ ic pro pe rty in v io la ti on of § 64 1. Id . at 7 69 –7 0. Th e d efen da nt , an e m pl oyee of th e U.S. Po st al Serv ic e, ha d s to le n p os ta ge st at em en ts fro m bu lkm ai li ng s, th ereb y pre ve nt in g fu nd s fr om

be in g c ol le ct edforth e m ai li ng s. Id . at 7 68 –6 9. The de fen da ntarg ue d t ha t t he di st ric t co urt erredin fin di ng th atth e fac e v al ue of th e p os ta ge st at em en ts ex ceed ed$1 ,00 0, wh ic h was ne ces sa ry forth e as se ss ed

Section 641 define s “value ” as “ fac e, par , or marke t value, or c ost price, e ither wholesa le 6 or re tail, whicheve r is g reater.” 18 U.S.C. § 641. 23pe na lty

pu rs uantto § 6 41 . Id. at76 9. Inev al ua ti ng th e d efen da nt ’s cla im , th e Sar ge ntco urt al so lo ok edto th e pl ai n m ean in g o f fac e v al ue . Id. at77 0. Th e Nin th Cir cu it , aft er o bs erv in g t ha t

“ [t]he st atut e d oe s n otde fin e fac e v al ue ,” st at edth atface va lu e’s pl ai n m ean in g i s

“ th e v al ue in di cat edon th e fac e o f a fi na nc ia l i ns tru m en t.” Id . Mor eo ve r, th e Nin thCir cu itin te rp ret edva lu e u nd er § 64 1 c on si st en tl y with § 23 11 , andqu ot ed th e Fi fth Cir cu it ’s in te rp ret at io n o f fac e v al ue in Onyieg o. Id . Becau se itfou nd th atth e p os ta ge st at em en ts were n otfin an ci al in st ru m en ts , th e Nin th Cir cu ithe ld th atth ey co ul d n otha ve th e requi redface va lu e an d re ve rs edth e d is tri ctco urt. Id
. at77 0– 71
. As t o o urown pre ced en t, the form er Fi fth Cir cu it ’s ho ld in g i n Un it edSta te s v. Ro bi ns on im

pl ic it ly sup po rts Onyieg o’s an d S arg en t’s i nt erp ret at io ns of f ace
va lu e. See 5 53 F.2d42 9, 4 31 (5t h C ir. 1 97 7)
. In R ob in so n, t he de fen da ntwas 7
co nv ic te d u nd er § 23 14 forco nduc t re la te d t o asch em e to pro m ot e worth le ss
m in in g l an d. Id . Duri ng th e co ur se of t he sch em e, th e d efen da ntass ig ne d a pr om is so ry

no te for $1 7,2 50 to a Mr. Sc am ard o, wh o was subs eque nt ly unabl e to
co ll ecton th e n ot e. Id . Scam ard o s ue d a ndrece iv eda $3 ,50 0 s et tl em en t. Id . The

In Bonne r v. City

of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this Court 7 adopted a s binding pre cede nt all decisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981. 24de fen da ntch al le ng edhi s co nv ic ti on un de r § 2 31 4 i n p arton th e g ro un d t ha t t he

go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro ve “ th e [p ro m is so ry no te ] ha d ava lu e in ex ces s o f $5 ,00 0.” Id. The Ro bi ns on co urt, af

te r no ti ng § 2 31 1’s d efi ni ti on of v al ue , st at ed : “ Face
va lu e was cle arl y

m or e th an$5 ,00 0. . . . Sub se qu en t s et tl em en t o f li ti ga ti on on th e
no te forles s t ha n $ 5,0 00 do es no t d ep riv e th is ev id en ce o f th e su ffi ci en cy ne ed ed to su st ai n acri m in al co nv ic ti on. . . .” Id . Thu s, o ur pre de ces so r co urt af

firm ed th e d efen da nt ’s con vi ct io n. Insu m , we agr ee t ha t the pl ai n m ean in g o f fac e v al ue —“ th e v al ue in di cat ed
on th e fac e o f anin stru m en t” —i s co nc lu si ve as t o t he st atut ory in te rp ret at io n is su e. See M E R R IA M -W E B S T E R ’ S T H IR D N E W I N T E R N A T IO N A L D IC T IO N A R Y U N A B R ID G E D 81 2 (3 d e d. 2 00 2) ; B LA C K ’ S L A W D IC T IO N A R Y 66 8, 1 23 3 (9 th ed
. 20 09 ); s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Ron Pai r Ent ers ., Inc ., 48 9 U.S. 2 35 , 24 2, 1 09 S. Ct . 10 26 , 10 31 (19 89 ) (“ The pl ai n m ean in g o f le gi sl at io n s ho ul d b e co nc lu si ve , ex cep t i n t he rare cas es in whi ch th e li te ral ap pl ic at io n o f a s ta tu te wil l p ro du ce a
res ul t d em on st rab ly at od ds with t he in te nt io ns of i ts dra fte rs .” (i nt ern al qu ot at io n
m ark s an d a lt erat io ns om it te d) ). Bro wn wo ul d h av e fac e v al ue be th e v al ue in di cat edon th e fac e o f anin st ru m en t o nl y if i t i s i ts “ actua l wo rth .” Thatis si m pl y no t fa ce v al ue . W e h ol d tha t “ face va lu e” i n t he co nt ex t o f § 2 31 4 i s t he
25va lu e in di cat ed , or wri tt en , on th e fac e o f th e in stru m en t. 8

Turn in g t o t hi s ca se , each of t he two W ei ns te in U.S. Treas ury ch eck s in di cat edon th ei r fac e th atth ey ha d ava lu e ex ceed in g $ 5,0 00 . Accor di ng ly, th e go ve rn m en t p ro du cedsu ffi ci en t ev id en ce o n t he va lu e el em en t fo r th e jury to
co nv ic t Br own on th is gro un d. C. Res tit uti on Defen da ntBro wn al so ch al le ng es th e d is tri ctco urt’s re st itut io n o rd er o f $1 20 ,42 1.5 9. Br own arg ue s t ha t t he un in di ct edW in ni ckan d C as si dy tran sa ct io ns sh ou ldno t h av e b een in cl ud edin th e res ti tu ti onord er. Thi s C ou rt r ev ie ws d e n ov o t he leg al it y of ares ti tu ti on ord er b utrev ie ws fo r cl ear e rro r th e fac tu al fin di ng s u nd erp in ni ng a res ti tu ti onord er. Uni te d S ta te s v . Vall ad ares , 54 4 F .3d12 57 , 12 69 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). A di st ric t co urt l ack s i nh eren t

Br own ar gues that our de cision in United States v. Sarro re quires that the c hecks must 8 have ha d an ac tual worth of at least $5,000. See 742 F .2d 1286, 1295–96 (11th Cir. 1984). Sarro, howe ver, involved pa intings, not financ ial instruments, and in any event, we aff

irmed the defe ndants’ convic tions for conspira cy to violate § 2314. In Sarro, the district c ourt “instructe d the jury that the g overnme nt did not have the burde n of provingthat the painting s wereactua lly worth $5,000.” I d. at 1295. In reje ctingthe def

endants’ c laim of instructed e rror , we noted the ir failure to disti nguish betwee n beingcharg ed with a substantive violation of § 2314 a nd a conspira cy

to violate § 2314. I d. at 1295–96. All that mattere d was the “ conspirator ’s belief ” that the pa intings’ va lue was at least $5,000. I d. at 1296. In mere dicta, we stated that “pr oof that the pa intings had a minimum value of $5,000 would have be en nec essar y had appe llants been c harg ed with a substantive violation of section 2314.” I d. at 1295. Given that pa intings, unlike financ ial instruments, have no fac e value , we did not rule on the meaningof value (fa ce, pa r, or mar ket). Sarr o does not approa ch dictatingthe outcome he re. 26au th or it y

to ord er re st itut io n andde riv es iton ly as ex pl ic it ly autho riz edby statut e. Id . In t hi s ca se , th atau th or it y is fou ndin th e Ma nd at ory Vict im Res ti tu ti on Act (“ MVRA”) , whi ch requi res th e d is tri ctco urt t o o rd er re st itut io n i f th e d efen da ntis
co nv ic te d o f anoff

en se “ in whi ch anid en ti fiabl e v ic ti m or v ic ti m s h as su ffer ed a . . . pecu ni ary lo ss .” 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 3A( a)(1 ), (c)( 1) (B). As t he m ean in g o f “ vi ct im ” is cru ci al to th is res ti tu ti on is su e, itis in st ru ct iv e to rev ie w th e st atut ory lan gu ag e an d h is to ry . Sect io n 3 66 3A( a)(2 ) of th e MVRA d efi ne s “ vi ct im ” as : [A] pe rs on di rect ly an d p r o x i mat el y ha rm ed as a res ul t of th e co m m is si on of an of

fen se fo r whi ch r e s t i tu ti on m ay be or de red in cl ud in g, in th e cas e of an of fen se th at in vo lv es as an el em en t a sc he m e, co ns pi racy, or pa tt ern of cri m in al act iv it y , an y pe rs on di rect ly ha rm ed by th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al co nduc t in th e co ur se of th e sc he m e, co ns pi racy, or p at te rn . Thi s ex pa ns iv e d efi ni ti on of “ vi ct im ” is id en ti cal to th atof 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 63 , part of th e Vic ti m

an d Witne ss Pro te ct io n Actof 1 98 2, Pub. L. No. 9 7- 29 1, 9 6 S ta t. 12 48 (co di fie d a s amend edat 1 8 U.S.C. § § 1 51 2– 15 15 , 35 79 –3 58 0)
. Howev er, § 36 63 ’s curren t d efi ni ti on of v ic ti m is a res ul t o f Co ng res s’s
reac ti on to th e Supr em e Co urt’s n arro w in te rp ret at io n o f th e st atut e’s or ig in al la ng ua ge in Hug he y

v. Un it edSta te s, 4 95 U.S. 41 1, 1 10 S. Ct. 1 97 9 (1 99 0) . The Supr em e Co urt i n Hu gh ey he ldth atres ti tu ti on co ul d b e au th or iz edun de r § 3 66 3

27“ on ly for the lo ss cau se d b y th e sp eci fic co nduc t t ha t [wa s] th e b as is of t he off en se of co nv ic ti on .” Id . at 4 13 , 11 0 S . Ct. at19 81 . Sub se qu en tl y , Con gr es s amend ed § 3 66 3 t hr ou gh th e Cri m e Co nt ro l Actof 1 99 0, Pub. L. No. 1 01 -6 47 , 10 4 S ta t. 47 89 . In i ts pre se ntform , § 3 66 3 re ad s i n p ert in en t p art : [T]he te rm “ vi ct im ” m ean s a pe rs on di rect ly an d pr ox im at el y ha rm ed as a res ul t of th e c omm is si on of an of fen se fo r whi ch res ti tu ti on m ay be or de red in cl ud in g, in th e cas e of an of fen se th at in vo lv es as an el em en t a sc he m e, co ns pi racy, or pa tt ern of cri m in al act iv it y , an y pe rs on di rect ly ha rm ed by th e de fen da nt ’s cri m in al co nduc t in th e co ur se of th e sc he m e, co ns pi racy, or p at te rn. . . . 18 U.S.C. § 3 66 3( a)(2 ) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Fo ll owi ng th e am en dm en t, co urts vi ewedCo ng res s’s ac ti on as i nt en de d t o
ov erturn i n p artth e Supr em e Co urt’s n arro w in te rp ret at io n o f vi ct im in Hug he y . See Un it edSta te s v . Dick ers on , 37 0 F .3d13 30 , 13 38 , 13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ) (co ll ect in g c as es ). Co urts ha ve ag reedth at , inli gh t o f th e ex pand edst atut ory la ng ua ge , res ti tu ti on ord ers forco nduc t cl os el y rel at edto th e o ffen se of c on vi ct io n
are app ro pr ia te un de r ei th er § 36 63 or § 36 63 A(a)(2 ), in ad di ti on to th e sp eci fic
co nduc t fo r whi chth e d efen da ntwas c on vi ct ed . See, e.g ., Dick ers on , 30 7 F .3dat 13 43 ; Un it edSta te s v . Heno ud , 81 F.3d48 4, 4 89 (4t h C ir. 1 99 6) ; Un it edSta te s v . Kon es , 77 F.3d66 , 70 (3dCir . 19 96 ). Thi s C ou rt r ep eat ed ly has reject edatt em pt s t o n arro w th e sc op e o f “ vi ct im ”

28un de r th e st atut e. InUni te d S ta te s v . Dick ers on , we con st ru edth e m ean in g o f

§ 3 66 3A( a)(2 ) in a wire frau d c as e. 37 0 F .3dat 1 33 0. Di ck ers on in vo lv eda
sc he m e to de frau d t he So ci al Secu rit y Adm in is tra ti on (“ SSA”). Id . at 1 33 2. Th e di sp ut edco nduc t i nc lu de d i n t he res ti tu ti on ord er al so rel at edto th e sa m e SSA
sc he m e, bu t t he co nduc t h adno t b een ch arg edbe cau se itlay ou ts id e th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Id. at13 34 . W e h el d t ha t re st itut io n m ay pro pe rly be awar de d fo r a vi ct im ’s lo ss es cau se d b y “ th e d efen da nt ’s con du ctin th e co ur se of t he sch em e . . . whe re s uc h l os se s wer e cau se d b y co nduc t o ut si de th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns .” Id
. at13 42 (em

ph as is ad de d)
. Nev ert he le ss , we em ph as iz edth at“ a cri m in al de fen da ntcan no t b e co m pe ll edto pa y

res ti tu ti on forco nduc t co m m it te d o ut si de of th e sc he m e, co ns pi racy, or p at te rnof c riminal be ha vi orun de rlyin g the off en se of
co nv ic ti on .” Id . at 1 34 1. W e al so ad dr es se d § 36 63 A(a)(2 )’s m ean in g i n Un it edSta te s v . Vall ad ares , 54 4 F .3d12 57 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). In Val la da res , th e d efen da ntch al le ng edth e
res ti tu ti on ord er tha t fo ll owe d h er co nv ic ti on for , in te r al ia , con sp ira cy to de frau d th e Me di care pro gr am . Id. at12 61
. The de fen da ntwas i nd ic te d o n asch em e to de frau d b y

whi ch th e d efen dantga ve il le ga ll y ob ta in edpre sc rip ti on s t o ph arm aci es , whi ch us edth em to subm itfrau du le ntrei m bu rs em en t cl ai m s t o Med ic are. Id . At tri al , th e g ov ern m en t p res en te d e vi de nc e o f an ot he r rel at ed
29sc he m e, al be itno t o ne ch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. Id . This sch em e in vo lv edth e

de fen da nt ’s ownco m

pa ny, PRN Hom e Heal th Care , th ro ug h wh ic h t he de fen da nt
subm it te d s im il ar fraudul en t M ed ic are c la im s (t he “ PRN” s ch em e). Id
. The de fen da ntin Vall ad ares arg ue d t ha t s he sh ou ldno t h av e to pay forth e PRN s ch em e b ecau se itwas n otch arg edin th e in di ct m en t. Id . at 1 26 9. Th is Co urt n ot edth at“ th e v ic ti m an d t he pu rp os e o f eac h s ch em e were t he same.” Id. at12 68 . Con cl ud in g t ha t t he PRN s ch em e was th eref or e “ rel ev an t co nduc t,” i t fo ll owe d t ha t t he res ti tu ti on awardco ul d i nc lu de th e lo ss es fro m bo th in di ct edan d
un in di ct edsch em es . Id. at12 70
. W it h t ha t b ack gr ou nd , we no te th atth e d is tri ctco urt h ere e xp res sl y fou nd :

“ th e ev id en ce s ho ws t ha t t he sch em e in cl ud edth e Cas si dy andW in [n ]ickch eck s” be cau se “ th e way

of a cco m pl is hi ng th [em ] was th e sa m e.” Thi s fa ctfin di ng is
supp orte d b y

th e rec or d andis no t cl earl y erro ne ou s. In de ed , th e Cas si dy and W in ni cktra ns act io ns fitwell withi n t he ov erar ch in g s ch em e al le ge d i n t he in di ct m en t: in bo th , Bro wn s ou gh t t o o bt ai n m on ey by m ean s o f fal se an d frau du le ntrep res en ta ti on s. As reco un te d a t l en gt h abo ve , th e Cas si dy and W in ni cktra ns act io ns were cl os el y rel at edan d i de nt ic al in ev ery m at eri al res pe ctto th e Weins te in tra ns act io n. Si m pl y pu t, g iv enit s fa ctfin di ng th atth e sc he m e in cl ud edall th e cl os el y 30rel at edan d i de nt ic al tra ns act io ns , th e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly inc lu de d t he Cas si dy

an d Win ni cktrans act io ns in th e res ti tu ti on ord er as th ey were “ vi ct im s” withi n t he
m ean in g o f th e MVRA. Th atth e in di ct m en t d idno t n am e Cas si dy andW in ni ckis imm at eri al . See Dic ke rs on , 37 0 F .3dat 1 33 9 (“ [C]ou rts ha ve he ldth atres ti tu ti on
m ay be ord eredto a vi ct im

no t n am edin th e in di ct m en t . . . .”). The Cas si dy and W in ni cktra ns act io ns co ul d b e co ns id eredrel ev an t co nduc t. Thu s, t he di st ric t
co urt d idno t err in in cl ud in g t he m in th e res ti tu ti onord er. See Vall ad ares , 54 4 F.3 d a t 1 27 0. AFFIRMED.

31