FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 85 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cr-0 00 44 -SPM -AK-1
UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JOSEP H T. L ANDER, a.k .a. Jo ey

Land er, 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 fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 2, 2 01 2) Befo re WILSON andCOX, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d R ESTANI, Ju dg e. * PER CURI AM:

Honora ble J ane A. Restani, United S t at es C o u rt of International Trade J udg e, sitti ng by * designation.A jury co nv ic te d J os ep h T. Lan de r on m ai l fr au d andm on ey lau nd eri ng ch arg es rel at edto two sep arat e fraudul en t s ch em es . One o f th es e sc he m es in vo lv edLand er’s co nv ers io n o f fu nd s d ev el op ers ga ve hi m to ho ldintru stfor fu tu re ex pe ns es ass oc ia te d wi th th ei r Ri ve r Sh or es at J en a d ev el op m en t (t he

“ Ri ve r Sh or es Sch em e”). In th e o th er s ch em e, Lan de r co nv in cedon e o f hi s vi ct im s t o m ak e a s ig ni fic an t i nv es tm en t i n avi ta m in co m pa ny he was st art in g cal le d Gen Sp ec Lab s, LLC b y m is rep res en ti ng th e ex pe ct edreturn o n t hi s in ve st m en t an d t he vi ab il it y of t he co m

pa ny (th e “ Gen Sp ec Sc he m e”). Th e supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t al le ge d t ha t Lan de r ex ecu te d t he se sch em es us in g t he m ai l
an d e ng ag edin m on et ary tra ns act io ns with the m on ey he de riv edfro m

th e Ri ve r Sh or es Sch em e. The ju ry co nv ic te d Lan de r on si xt een of t he twen ty-on e co un ts in th e supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. Lan de r no w app eal s, ch al le ng in g h is co nv ic ti on s an d
se nt en ces on va rio us gro un ds
. W e co nc lu de th atth e p ro of pre se nt edat t ria l i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e Ri ve r Sh or es m ai l fr au d c ou nt(Co un t Two ) m at eri al ly vari edfro m th e al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d i n t he supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. Thi s v ari an ce s ub st an ti al ly prejud ic ed Lan de r an d we r ev ers e h is co nv ic ti on on th is co un t. We als o re ve rs e h is m on ey laun de rin g c on vi ct io ns (Co un ts Fo urth ro ug h F ou rte en ) be cau se th ey were pr ed ic at edonth e Ri ve r Sh or es m ai l fr au d c ou nt . W e aff irm Lan de r’s m ai l fr au d
2co nv ic ti on s re la te d t o t he GenS pe c Sch em e. And , we dec id e Lan de r’s ot he r

as se rti on s o f erro r la ckm eri t.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. FACTS Lan de r worke d a s an att orne y inDix ie Co un ty, Fl or id a. Ther e, he pra ct ic ed la w andserve d a s t he co un ty atto rn ey . Land er’s b us in es s d eal in gs ex te nd ed 1 be y on d h is leg al work , ho wev er. He al so tri edto st artan d was th e m ajor it y own er of a vi ta m in co m

pa ny call edGenS pe c Lab s, LLC (“ Gen Sp ec”)
. 1. Ri ve r Sh or es Sch em e The na tu re o f th is sch em e d em on st rat es th e b lu rry li ne be twee n Lan de r’s pr iv at e p ract ic e an d h is workas c ou nt y att orne y inth is cas e. A gro up of r eal
es ta te de ve lo pe rs pl an ni ng a pr ojec t ca ll edRiv er Sh or es at J en a (“ Ri ve r Sh or es ”) in Dix ie Co un ty retai ne d Lan de r to he lp gu id e th ei r pr ojec t thr ou gh th e co un ty’ s reg ul at ory

pro ces s. Whenth ey

in it ia ll y m etLand er the y

di d n otkn ow h e was th e co un ty atto rn ey , bu t the y qu ic kl y be cam e aware of t hi s fa ctth ro ug h the ir m eet in gs with h im . In o rd er t o “ gi ve a le ve l o f se curit y to th e p ro sp ect iv e b uyers tha t [t he de ve lo pe rs ] wou ldfin is h t he de ve lo pm en t,” ( Dkt . 19 0 a t 9 6) , th e d ev el op ers ga ve
Be cause L ander challeng es the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to support his convictions, we 1 state the fac ts in the light most favor able to the Gover nment. United States v. W ard, 197 F.3d 1076, 1079 (11th Cir. 1999) (c itations omi tted). 3Lan de r $8 20 ,00 0 i n Au gu stof 2 00 5 t o b e h el d i n t ru stto dra w aga in stas t he

de ve lo pe rs in cu rredin fras tru ctur e ex pe ns es . Lan de r th enop en edanacco un t ca ll edth e “ Lan de r Law Firm – Sp eci al Acco un t” to ho ldth e d ev el op ers ’ fu nd s. Bu t, n otall of t he se fun ds he lp ed
co m pl et e Ri ve r Sh or es . For e xa m pl e, Lan de r m ad e a $ 14 0,9 80 withd rawal fro m th e acc ou ntto bu y

anis la ndoff

th e wes te rnco as t o f Fl or id a. He als o u se d t he
m on ey forva rio us ot he r pe rs on al ex pe ns es . Thes e p ers on al withd rawal s co nt in ue d u nt il Decem

be r of 20 07 when Land er d ep le te d a ndclo se d t he acco un t. Whi le Land er was m ak in g p ers on al draws o n t he acco un t, h e al so ful fil le d two of the reque st s fr om

th e d ev el op ers form on ey fro m th e acc ou nt . Land er
m ai le d a$2 00 ,00 0 c as hi er’s ch eckdra wn fr om th e acc ou nton Aug us t 1 7, 2 00 5. Inearl y 20 06 , Land er fu lfi ll edan ot he r reque stfor$3 00 ,00 0. Acco rd in g t o o ne of th e d ev el op ers , he d idno t que st io n t ha t Lan de r st il l h el d t he ot he r $3 20 ,00 0 be cau se Land er re m it te d t he se two reque st s i n ati m el y m an ne r. Whe n t he de ve lo pe rs m ad e a thi rdreque stforfun ds , Land er d en ie d i t an d i nf orm edth em th atth e co un ty com

m is si on ers were n otco m fo rtabl e wit h t he pro ject a ndth e res t of th e m on ey

wou ldbe rel eas edwhen th ey fin is he d t he pro

ject. 2. Gen Sp ec Sc he m e

4Inth e su m m er o f 20 05 , Land er was als o b us y so li ci ti ng in ve st or s fo r a bu si ne ss ve ntur e h e cal le d Gen Sp ec. Acco rd in g t o Lan de r, Gen Sp ec m ark et ed vi ta m in s fo r sp eci fic raci al an d e th ni c g ro up s an d “ itwas t he ho tt es t thi ng on th e
m ark et .” (Dkt . 19 1 a t 5 0.) He t ol d p ot en ti al in ve st or s h e al read y ha d c on tra ct s with v ari ou s m ajorret ai l o ut le ts to sel l the vi ta m in s an d p ro m is eda qu ic k re tu rn on in ve st m en t. Infact , Land er h adno t s ecu redth es e co nt ract s an d d idno t p ay th e pr om is eddi vi de nd s. One of Ge nS pe c’s in ve st or s was Kath y Veach . Land er s ou gh t a $ 1 m il li on bu y in fro m Veach in ex ch an ge fora 1.5 % sh are o f Gen Sp ec. He co nv in cedMs
. Veach to m eetpa rt o f th is ob li ga ti onby pro vi di ng a $1 27 ,74 5.9 0 c as hi er’s ch eck
so th atLand er co ul d b uy a Mas erat i au to m ob il e. Becaus e Veac h d idno t h av e en ou ghm on ey

to pa y th e b uy in, Lan de r al so to ldhe r th atanin di vi du al nam ed Hen ry Fred“ Mi tc h” Mi tc he ll wou ldlen d h er $ 50 0,0 00 . Veachag reedto th is lo an
an d g av e Lan de r $5 0,0 00 as p aym en t fo r th e lo anori gi na ti on fee. Sh e th enbe ga n
m ai li ng in st al lm en t p aym en ts of $ 4,1 66 .67 to Mi tc he ll . Muc h l ik e th e p ro m is ed Gen Sp ec d iv id en ds , th is lo anwas i ll us ory . Mit ch el l n ev er ag reedto lo an $5 00 ,00 0 t o Vea ch . Rath er, Mi tc he ll ackno wled ge d t ha t Lan de r owe d h im m on ey , so he ap pl ie d p artof Ve ach ’s paym en ts to th is de btan d t he n re m it te d t he res t t o Lan de r. 56B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Th e In di ctm en t The gra ndjury returne d atwen ty-on e co un t s up ers ed in g i nd ic tm en t ag ai ns t Lan de r. Six te enof t ho se co un ts co nc ernus he re. Cou ntTwo o f th e in di ctm en t 2 rel at es to th e Ri ve r Sh or es Sch em e an d i s ex pl ai ne d m or e fu ll y be lo w. Cou nt s Fo urth ro ug h F ou rte ench arg e Lan de r wit h m on ey lau nd eri ng by eng ag in g i n a
m on et ary tra ns act io n i n p ro pe rty of a v al ue gre at er tha n $ 10 ,00 0 d eri ve d fr om m ai l frau d, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 19 57 . Thes e co un ts are b as edon va rio us withd rawal s Lan de r m ad e fro m th e Lan de r Law Firm

– Sp eci al Acco un t. Co un ts Fi fte enth ro ug h Ni ne te enals o c ha rg e m ai l fr au d i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 1 34 1
an d 1 34 2 i n c on ne ct io n wi th Land er’s Gen Sp ec Sc he m e. Sp eci fic al ly, th e in di ctm en t al le ge s t ha t Lan de r us edhi s p os it io n o f trus t as anatt orne y to co nv in ce pe op le to in ve stinth is bu si ne ss . It al le ge s t ha t Lan de r fal se ly tol d p ot en ti al in ve st or s h e h adco nt ract s wi thm ajorret ai l s to res to sel l Gen Sp ec p ro du ct s an d th ata qu ic k i nv es tm en t was ne ed edto en su re tha t the in di vi du al s re cei ve d di vi de nd s. Fi na ll y , itco nt en ds Land er u se d t he m ai l t o e xe cu te th is sch em e.

T h e j ury returne d a verdic t of not guilty on Count One (mail fra ud). The district court 2 grante d a judgme nt of acquittal on Count Three (mail fra ud) and Count Ninetee n (principa l to mail fra ud). The Government dis miss ed C ount Twenty (wire fra ud) and Count Twenty-one (making a false statement to an F DI C bank). 72. Mo ti on s fo r Ju dg m en t o f Acqui tt al

Near t he clo se of the Gov ern m en t’s ca se inch ie f, Land er m ov edth e co urt fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . Land er ar gu edth atth ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o supp ort the co un ts ag ai ns t h im . He ren ewedth is m ot io n a t the clo se of t he Gov ern m en t’s ca se . The co urt g ran te d t he m ot io n a s t o C ou nt s Th ree a nd Nin et een be cau se itfou ndth atth ere was no m ai li ng to supp ort the se two m ai l frau d c ou nt s. Aft er the jury returne d i ts ve rd ic t, Lan de r ag ai n m ov edth e co urt fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al . This m ot io n a ss ert edth atth e Gov ern m en t’s ev id en ce d id
no t p ro ve an y

sch em e to de frau d s o h e sh ou ldbe acqui tt edof t he m ai l fr au d a nd th e acc om

pa nyin g m on ey

lau nd eri ng co un ts . The m ot io n a ls o c la im edth atth e Gov ern m en t h adco ns tru ct iv el y am en de d t he in di ctm en t b y pre se nt in g a t tria l a
sc he m e to de frau d d iff

eren t fr om

th e o ne all eg edinth e in di ctm en t. The co urt de ni edth is m ot io n.

3. Se nt en ci ng Afte r a fi ve -d ay

tri al , th e jury con vi ct edLand er o n s ix te enco un ts . The pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt e st ab li sh eda gu id el in e im pr is on m en t ra ng e o f
se ve nt y to eig hty -s ev enm on th s. Th e co urt s en te nc edLand er t o a n e ig ht y -s ev en
m on th term

of i m pr is on m en t as to each co un t, t o ru n c on cu rren tl y .

8II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

Lan de r rai se s t he fol lo win g i ss ue s o n app eal : (1 ) whe th er a co ns tru ct iv e
am en dm en t t o o r m at eri al va rianc e fro m th e supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t o ccu rred ; an d (2 ) whe th er the co urt erredby den y in g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al be cau se th e ev id en ce d oe s n otsupp ort an y of h is co nv ic ti on s. 3 III. DISC USSION A. MATERIAL VARIANCE Lan de r arg ue s b efo re thi s co urt, as he di d i n h is Mo ti on forJu dg m en t o f Acqui tt al , th atth e fac ts pro ve d a t tria l t o s up po rt t he Riv er Sh or es m ai l fr au d

4 ch arg e (Co un t Two ) m at eri al ly vari edfro m th e al le ga ti on s o f th e supe rs ed in g in di ctm en t. Acco rd in g t o Lan de r, th is va ria nc e subs ta nt ia ll y pre jud ic edhi s ri gh ts
an d h is co nv ic ti onon th is co un t s ho ul d b e rev ers ed . W e ag ree.

L ander also raises other issues on ap p ea l : (1) whether the court err ed by denying his 3 second motion for a mistrial; (2) whether the court err ed by deny ing his motion to dismiss the indictment due to grand jury bias; and (3) whether the court err ed by deny ing his emer g ency motion to continu e. We reje ct L ander ’s arguments on these issues and none of them war rant further d i s cu s sion. Also, beca

use we reve rse twelve of the six teen counts of conviction and rema n d fo r rese ntencing , we will not addre ss L ander ’s cha lleng e to his curr ent sentenc e. L ander ’s Motion fo r J udg ment of Acquittal stated, “Instead of arguing the information 4 contained in the i ndictment, the Government prese nted evidence that they believed constituted an alternative scheme to defr aud which went well beyond the four corne rs of the in d i ct m en t, constituting a constructive amendment to the indictment.” (Dkt. 127 at 16.) Whil e L ander labeled this a constructive amendment, we understand this contention as arguing a materia l varia nce. When the distri ct court denied L ander ’s motion, it too understood L ander as having made a materia l varia nce argument. Thus, we have no trouble concluding that L ander prese rved this issue for appea l. 9Co un t Two of t he in di ctm en t al le ge s t ha t Lan de r

di d kno win gl y

an d wi ll fu ll y

de vi se an d i nt en d t o d ev is e a s ch em e to de frau d a ndto frau du le nt ly dep riv e an ot he r of th e in tang ib le rig htof hi s h on es t s erv ic es as C ou nt y Att orne y for Dix ie Co un ty, Fl or id a, an d to ob ta in m on ey

an d p ro pe rty andby m ean s o f m at eri al fal se an d frau du le ntpre te ns es , rep res en ta ti on s an d p ro m is es , andforth e pu rp os e o f ex ecu ti ng th is sch em e to de frau d, an d a tt em pt in g t o d o s o, di d kno win gl y

cau se m atte rs to be de po si te d wi th an d d el iv eredby th e Uni te d S ta te s Po st al Serv ic e in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 41 an d 1 34 6. (Dkt. 6 6 a t 1 -3 .) The in di ctm en t co nt in ue s b y de sc rib in g t hi s s ch em e to de frau d. Itst at es th atLand er i n h is cap aci ty as co un ty atto rn ey fal se ly repre se nt edto de ve lo pe rs th atth ey were re qu ire d t o p ay

a pe rfo rm an ce b on d t o Di xi e Co un ty thro ug h h im as co un ty atto rn ey . Accor di ng to th e in di ctm en t, Lan de r th enop en edth e “ Lan de r Law Firm – Sp eci al Acco un t” ; d ep os it ed$8 20 ,00 0 a s p aym en t fo r th e pe rfo rm an ce b on d i n t he acco un t; co nc eal edth e fac t h e d ep os it edth e m on ey in to hi s o wn l aw fi rm

acco un t b y

cau si ng cas hi er’s ch eck s t o b e is su edfro m th e acco un t; an d c on ve rte d $ 32 0,0 00 of t he frau du le nt ly obt ai ne d fu nd s. By thi s co nduc t, the in di ctm en t al le ge s t ha t Lan de r de pr iv edth e ci ti zen s o f Dix ie Co un ty of th ei r ri gh t t o h on es t s erv ic es .

“ The st an dardof r ev ie w for whet he r th ere i s a m at eri al va ria nc e b etweenth e al le ga ti on s i n t he in di ctm en t an d t he fact s es tabl is he d a t tria l i s t wof ol d: Firs t,

10whe th er a m at eri al va ria nc e d idoc cur, an d, s eco nd , whet he r th e d efen da ntsu ffer ed

subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce as a res ul t.” Uni te d Sta tes v. C ha st ai n , 19 8 F .3d13 38 , 13 49 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Pr in ce , 88 3 F .2d95 3, 9 59 (11 th Cir
. 19 89 )). W e h av e cal le d a n a ll eg at io n o f a v ari an ce i n e ss en ce “ on e fo rm of ch al le ng e to th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce.” Uni te d Sta tes v. J en ki ns , 77 9 F .2d 60 6, 6 16 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). “ A ‘ va ria nc e’ occu rs when th e ev id en ce attri al
es tabl is he s fa ct s m at eri al ly diff eren t fr om

th os e al le ge d i n t he in di ctm en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Ca

po ra le , 80 6 F .2d14 87 , 14 99 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Jo hn so n , 71 3 F .2d63 3, 6 43 n.9 (11 th Cir . 19 83 )). To fi ndsubs ta nt ia l p reju di ce, we ha ve ord in ari ly con si de redwhet he r “ th e p ro of at t ria l d iff

eredso gre at ly from th e ch arg es th atap pe ll an t was un fai rly surp ris edan d was un ab le to pre pa re an ad equa te de fen se .” Uni te d Sta tes v. C alde ro n , 12 7 F .3d13 14 , 13 28 (11 thCir
. 19 97 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. The Gov ern m en t co nc ed es th atth e o nl y po ss ib le ba si s fo r co nv ic ti onon Co un t Two of t he in di ctm en t i s p ecu ni ary m ai l fr au d u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § 13 41
. 5 (Ap pe ll ee’s Br. a t 3 6 n .3.) To pro ve th atLand er co m m it te d m ai l fr au d, the

The Go v ernment argues that Count Two of the superse ding indictment alleg ed honest 5 service s fra

ud and pecuniary fra

ud. Acc ording to the Government, th i s gav e it a choice at trial to prove only a pecunia

ry fra ud scheme and the jury cou l d p ro perly convict on this basis. This argument fails to addre ss L ander ’s claim that the alleg ations of the indictment materia lly varie d from the proof a

t trial. 11Gov ern m en t h adto sh ow tha t h e “ (1 ) in te nt io na ll y parti ci pa te d i n asch em e to de frau d; an d (2 ) us edth e m ai ls to furth er tha t s ch em e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Br ow n , 40 F.3d12 18 , 12 21 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (ci ti ng 18 U.S.C. § 1 34 1; Uni te d Sta tes v. W in ga te , 99 7 F .2d14 29 , 14 32 (11 th Cir . 19 93 )). “ A sch em e to de frau d re qu ire s pr oo f of a m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on , or t he om is si on or c on ceal m en t o f a m at eri al factcal cu la te d t o d ecei ve an ot he r ou t o f m on ey or p ro pe rty.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Max wel l , 57 9 F .3d12 82 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. S vet e , 55 6 F.3 d 1 15 7, 1 16 1, 1 16 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (enba nc )). The in di ctm en t m etth is requi rem en t fo r a m at eri al m is rep res en ta ti on by alle gi ng th atLand er “ fal se ly rep res en te d t o c ert ai n d ev el op ers ha vi ng bu si ne ss be fo re Di xi e Co un ty tha t the de ve lo pe rs were re qu ire d t o p ay a pe rfo rm an ce b on d t o Di xi e Co un ty.” (Dkt. 6 6 a t 2.) We agr ee wi th Land er tha t thi s al le ga ti on inth e in di ctm en t m at eri al ly vari es fro m th e p ro of at tria l. Infact , th e ev id en ce attri al , eve n wh enco ns id eredinth e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e Gov ern m en t, d is pr ov edth atLand er m ad e th is m is rep res en ta ti on . Fo r ex am pl e, whe n o ne of t he de ve lo pe rs was a sk edwhet he r Lan de r ev er rep res en te d t o t he m

th atDix ie Co un ty requ ire d ape rfo rm an ce b on d, h e res po nd ed :

“Notth atI reca ll .” (Dkt . 18 9 a t 1 46 -4 7.) An ot he r on e o f th e d ev el op ers st at ed th atLand er n ev er t ol d h er tha t the de ve lo pe rs ne ed edto po sta pe rfo rm an ce b on d.
12And , th e Gov ern m en t p oi nt s t o n o p la ce i n t he reco rdwher e th e ev id en ce attri al

supp orts th e ch arg e th atLand er m is rep res en te d t o t he Riv er Sh or es de ve lo pe rs th at th ey ne ed edto po sta pe rfo rm an ce b on d. With ou t thi s m is rep res en ta ti on to
supp ort the Riv er Sh or es sch em e to de frau d, the Gov ern m en t s hi fte d i ts tri al st rat eg y . Duri ng it s cl os in g a rg um en t, i t ap pe aredto rel y on Land er’s rep res en ta ti on s t o t he de ve lo pe rs th athe co ul d m ak e su re the ir p ro ject m ov ed th ro ug h t he reg ul at ory

pro ces s. At o ral arg um en t b efo re thi s co urt, the Gov ern m en t s ug ge st edth e m is rep res en ta ti on oc curredwhenLand er s ai d h e wou ld ho ldth e $ 82 0,0 00 in tru stforde ve lo pm en t ex pe ns es . In ei th er ca se , th e
m is rep res en ta ti on th e Gov ern m en t re li es on do es no t co in ci de with t he all eg at io ns of th e in di ctm en t. The sch em e to de frau d i s an ess en ti al ele m en t o f th e m ai l fr au d ch arg e. Thu s, we co nc lu de th ere was a m at eri al va ria nc e fro m th e in di ctm en t. Nex t, we m

us t d eci de whet he r th is va ria nc e subs ta nt ia ll y pre jud ic edLand er. W e h ol d t ha t i t d id . As ou r pr eced en t ex pl ai ns , th e rat io na le be hi ndth e m at eri al
va ria nc e ru le is th atth e acc us edbe in fo rm edof t he ch arg es ag ai ns t h im an d t ha t he no t b e su rp ris edby the ev id en ce o ffer edat t ria l. Th omp so n v . Nag le , 11 8 F .3d 14 42 , 14 53 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (ci ti ng Berg er v. Uni te d Sta tes , 29 5 U.S. 7 8, 8 2, 5 5 S
. Ct . 62 9, 6 30 (19 35 )). Thi s ju st ifi cat io n i s g ro un de d i n t he fun dam en ta l requi rem en t tha t anin di ctm en t “ ap pr is e[] th e d efen dantof wh athe m us t b e 13pr ep aredto m eet .” Rus se ll v. Uni te d Sta tes , 36 9 U.S. 7 49 , 76 3- 64 , 82 S. Ct. 1 03 8, 10 47 (19 62 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. The Gov ern m en t trie s t o re ly on asch em e to de frau d e nt ire ly diff eren t fr om th e o ne all eg edin th e in di ctm en t t o s up po rt Lan de r’s Ri ve r Sh or es m ai l fr au d
co nv ic ti on . But , any mis rep res en ta ti on th e jury m ay ha ve reas on ab ly reli edup on to supp ort i ts co nv ic ti on on Co un t Two di ffer edfro m th e m is rep res en ta ti on ch arg edinth e in di ctm en t. As s uc h, the in di ctm en t fa il edto pu t Lan de r on no ti ce of th e cri m e fo r whi ch he was c on vi ct ed —Lan de r co ul d n otpre pa re a d efen se to a sc he m e to de frau d t ha t d oe s n otap pe ar i n t he in di ctm en t. W e d eci de th atan y

pro of th e Gov ern m en t m ay

ha ve off eredat t ria l t o supp ort the jury’ s v erd ic t o n C ou ntTwo v ari edso gre at ly from th e al le ga ti on s o f th e in di ctm en t tha t Lan de r was un ab le to pre pa re h is de fen se . Whe n am at eri al
va ria nc e subs ta nt ia ll y

pre jud ic es th e d efen da ntas i t d oe s h ere, thi s v ari an ce co ns ti tu te s re ve rs ib le erro r. Se e Uni te d Sta tes v. N ar og , 37 2 F .3d12 43 , 12 47 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . There fo re, we rev ers e Lan de r’s co nv ic ti on on Co un t Two
. B. SUFFIC IENCY OF THE EV IDENCE Lan de r ch al le ng es th e su ffi ci en cy of the ev id en ce o n a ll co un ts . W e rev ie w de no vo th e d is tri ctco urt’s d en ia l o f a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on su ffi ci en cy of t he
ev id en ce g ro un ds
. Uni te d Sta tes v. Y at es , 43 8 F .3d13 07 , 13 11 -1 2 (1 1t h C ir.
1420 06 ) (en ba nc ) (ci ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Pist on e , 17 7 F .3d95 7, 9 58 (11 th Cir
.

19 99 )). W e v ie w th e ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e Gov ern m en t an d
res ol ve an y

co nf li ct s i n the ev id en ce i n fa vo r of th e Gov ern m en t. Uni te d Sta tes v. W ar d , 19 7 F .3d10 76 , 10 79 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ [T]he ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt aco nv ic ti on if ‘a reas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d fi ndth atth 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. Will ia ms , 52 7 F .3d12 35 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. C alho on , 97 F.3d 51 8, 5 23 (11 th Cir . 19 96 )).

1. Mo ne y Laun de rin g C ou nt s (C ou nt s Fo ur Thro ug h F ou rte en ) Lan de r co nt en ds th e ev id en ce i s i ns uf fic ie ntto supp ort h is co nv ic ti on s fo r
m on ey lau nd eri ng in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 7. A co nv ic ti on un de r § 1 95 7 requi res pro of

th atLand er “ kn owi ng ly eng ag edor a tt em pt edto en ga ge ina
m on et ary tra ns act io n i n c riminal ly deri ve d p ro pe rty tha t i s o f va lu e g reat er tha n $1 0,0 00 an d i s d eri ve d fr om sp eci fie d u nl awfu l ac ti vi ty.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Jo hn so n , 44 0 F .3d12 86 , 12 89 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) (qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d) . To sa ti sf y th e “ sp eci fie d unl awfu l ac ti vi ty” pro ng of t he m on ey laun de rin g c ha rg es , th e Gov ern m en t re li edon th e m ai l fr au d c ha rg e inCo un t Two of th e in di ctm en t. Bec au se we rev ers e Lan de r’s co nv ic ti on on Co un t Two , we rev ers e Lan de r’s co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s Fo urth ro ug h F ou rte enas we ll
. 152. Gen Sp ec M ai l Fr au d (C ou nt s Fi fte enThro ug h Ei gh te en )

Lan de r arg ue s t ha t the ev id en ce d idno t es tabl is h t ha t h e co m m it te d m ai l frau d i n c on ne ct io n wi th th e Gen Sp ec Sc he m e. The o ffen se of m ai l fr au d c on si st s of “ (1 ) anin te nt io na l p art ic ip at io n i n asch em e to de frau d ape rs on of m on ey or pr op erty , and(2) th e u se of t he m ai ls infurth eran ce o f th e sc he m e.” Uni te d Sta tes v. Smi th , 93 4 F .2d27 0, 2 71 (11 th Cir . 19 91 ) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Do wn s , 87 0 F.2 d 6 13 , 61 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) ). Lan de r as se rts th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredby deny in g h is m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al on th es e co un ts be cau se th e Gov ern m en t fa il edto pro ve Gen Sp ec was a frau du le ntve ntur e. W e rejectth is arg um en t. To p ro ve m ai l fr au d, th e Gov ern m en t d idno t h av e to est ab li sh th atGenS pe c it se lf wa s fr au du le nt . Rat he r, th e Gov ern m en t h adth e b ur de n t o p ro ve th atLand er en ga ge d i n asch em e to de frau d Gen Sp ec i nv es to rs . The ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t t o p ro ve Land er in te nt io na ll y

tri edto de frau d Gen Sp ec i nv es to rs of m on ey or p ro pe rty. The ev id en ce attri al est ab li sh edth atLand er m is rep res en te d t he pro sp ect s o f Gen Sp ec b y

tel li ng Veach th atsh e wou ldreco ve r he r in ve st m en t wi th in si x
m on th s. He al so li edto he r whe n h e to ldhe r he alr eady ha d l in edup en do rs em en ts an d c on tra ct s wi th m ajordi st rib ut or s. Aft er co nv in ci ng Veach to in ve stin GenS pe c th ro ug h m is rep res en ta ti on s l ik e th es e, Lan de r m ad e a 16frau du le ntarrang em en t t o h el p Vea ch pa y a po rti on of t he $1 m il li on bu y in Lan de r de m an de d. Lan de r to ldVeach th ata th irdparty, Mit ch el l, wo ul d l oa n h er th e m on ey

an d c on vi nc edVeachto pa y Land er a $ 50 ,00 0 l oan o rig in at io n fe e an d th enm ai l M it ch el l ch eck s t o p ay off he r de bt . Land er l at er ad m it te d, an d M it ch el l te st ifi ed , th atMi tc he ll ne ve r m ad e a l oa n t o Vea ch . Ins te ad , Mit ch el l u se d a po rti onof Ve ach ’s paym en ts to pa y off a de btLand er o wedMi tc he ll an d t he n rem it te d t he ba la nc e to Land er. Bas edon th is ev id en ce we co nc lu de a reas on ab le jury cou ldfin d t ha t Lan de r in te nt io na ll y de vi se d asch em e to de frau d a ndus edth e
m ai l i n fu rth eran ce o f th atsch em e. W e affi rm hi s co nv ic ti on s o n t he se co un ts . IV. CONCLUSION W e co nc lu de th e m at eri al va ria nc e b etweenth e p ro of off eredby the Gov ern m en t attri al an d the all eg at io ns insupp ort o f Co un t Two of t he in di ctm en t
subs ta nt ia ll y

pre jud ic edLand er’s ab il it y

to pre pa re h is de fen se . There fo re, we rev ers e Lan de r’s co nv ic ti on an d v acat e h is sen te nc e o n C ou ntTwo. The m on ey laun de rin g c ha rg es in Co un ts Fo urth ro ug h F ou rte ende pe nd edon th is m ai l fr au d
co nv ic ti on , so we rev ers e th es e co nv ic ti on s an d v acat e th es e se nt en ces as we ll
. W e aff irm Lan de r’s co nv ic ti on s o n C ou nt s Fi fte enth ro ug h Ei gh te en . And , we rejectLand er’s o th er as se rti on s o f erro r. Duri ng sen te nc in g, the di st ric t co urt
co ns id eredall of the co un ts of c on vi ct io n. Be cau se we rev ers e h is co nv ic ti on s o n 17Co un ts Two an d F ou r th ro ug h F ou rte en , we vac at e Lan de r’s se nt en ces on all

co un ts an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g. 6 AFFIR MED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, VACATED A ND REMANDED IN PART.

During rese ntencing , the district court should rec alculate the amount of loss in this case in 6 light of our

reve rsal of Counts Two and F our through Four teen. 18