F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Sep tember 2 5, 2008 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NO T PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 07- 1524 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 07-20341 -CR- AS G UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us PE DRO VA

NE GA S, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 25, 200 8) Be fo re BA RKE T T , MA RC U S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Pedro V anegas appeals his convi ctions for conspi racy to defraud the U nited St at es , in vio latio n of

18 U . S. C. § 37 1, and unlaw fu l pr oduc tio n of aF lor ida2

com m ercia l driver's lice nse ("CD L") , in violation o f 18 U. S. C. §§ 10 28(a)(1), (c)( 3)(A ), and 18 U. S. C. § 2 . H e also appeals the denial of his m otion for a m istri al . I. V an eg as arg ue s th er e w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s c onvi ct ionf or conspiracy . He argues he did not cons pire to produce the identification card because it w as issued bystate em ploy ees not a part of the c onsp iracy . H e ar gues did no t conspire or unlawfully agree with Steven B aez, his alleged co-conspirator, to p ro duc e any

f al se ide nti fi catio n. H e cl ai m s he a ct ed sin gul ar ly

in subm itt ing doc um en ts t o th e Fl or ida D ivi sio n of

D ri ve r L ic en se s and h e did not a gr ee w ith Ba ez to ac hie ve any

unl aw fu l ob

j ec tiv e. H e ar gue s hi s a sso ci at ionw ithBa ez , and Van eg as 's p res en ce atth e Dri ve r Lice ns es off ic e was in su ffi ci en t t o s ho w a co nspi ra cy . H e co nte nds the gov er nm en t di d no t sh owhis aw ar en es s of the es se nti al na tur e of

the c onsp ir ac y . H e ar gue s m er e as soc iatio n w iththe co nspi rator , pr es en ce a t the tr an sa ct ion , and a ssi stanc e to the c onsp ir at or w as not s u f f i c i e n tt o s h o wh e wa s amemb e r o f ac o n s p i r a c y. "Su ffi ci en cy

of t he ev id en ce i s a q ue st io n o f la w rev ie wedde no vo ." U . S. v. Mart ine z, 83 F . 3d 3 71, 373 -7 4 ( 11th C ir . 199 6) . T he e vid en ce is suf fi ci en t t o su sta in a

c onvi ct ionif

any r at ion al tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d have f

ound the3

es se nti al e le m en ts o f the c ri m e be y ond a re as ona ble doubt. U . S. v. Mi ntm ir e, 507 F. 3d 1 273, 128 9 ( 11th C ir . 200 7) . W e vie w"the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost favor ab le to the G ove rn m en t and . . . [ dr aw ] a ll re as ona ble inf er en ce s and cr ed ibi lity

a sse ssm en ts i n th e G ove rn m ent' s f av or . " I d. "W

he re the gov er

nm en t re lie s onc ir cum stanti al e vid en ce , r ea sona ble inf er en ce s, and n ot m er e spe cu latio n, m ust support the jury 's verdict. " U .S . v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 1228 , 1236 (11th Cir. 2005 ) (quotation om itted). "In order to char ge a violation u nder § 371, the governm ent m ust sh ow that the de fe ndant c onsp ir ed

to co m m it one or

m or e subs tanti ve of

fe nse s a ga ins t the U nit ed S tate s, or that the de fe ndant c onsp ir ed to de fr au d th e gove rn m en t i n any m anner or f

or any purpose." U .S . v. Harm as, 974 F. 2d 12 62, 1266 (11t h Cir. 1992 ). "I t ha s lo ng b ee n e sta bli she d th at

thi s st at uto ry langua ge is not

c onf ine d to fraud as that ter

m has been defined in the com m on law. " D ennis v. U. S. , 384 U. S. 855, 861 8 6 S.C t. 1840, 1844, 16 L. Ed. 2d 97 3 (1966). "It r eaches any conspiracy fo r the pur

pose of im pa ir ing , obs tr

uc tin g, or de fe at ing the law fu l f

unc tio n of

any de partm en t of

gov er nm en t. " I d. ( quot at ionom itt ed ). U nde r the "d ef ra ud" c lause of § 37 1, "the gov er

nm en t m ust pr ove that the U nit ed

S tate s w as the ult im at e targ et of the c onsp ir ac y . " H ar

m as , 974 F . 2d at 12 68. "I n or de r to o bta in a

c onvi ct ionf

or c onsp ir ac y

und er 18 U . S. C. § 37 1, the4

Governm ent m

ust prov e (1) that an agreem ent existed between tw o or m ore pe rs ons to c om

m it a cr im e; ( 2) that the de fe ndant k now ing ly and v oluntari ly j oined or participated in the cons piracy ; and (3) a c onsp irator perf orm ed an overt ac t i n f urthe ranc e of

the a gr ee m en t. " U . S. v. N diay e, 434 F . 3d 1 270, 129 4 ( 11th Ci r. 20 06 ). "Th e kno wled ge requi rem en t i s s at is fie d wh en th e Gov ern m en t s ho ws a defe ndant's awareness of the essential nature of the c onsp iracy ." Id. "A co nvi ct ionf

or c onsp ir ac y

m ay be obt ai ne d vi a ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce . " Id . "[ A ] gr ee m en t i s th e es se nti al e vil a t whic h th e cr im e of c onsp ir ac y

is dir ec te d. " U . S. v. Ch an dle r, 388 F . 3d 7 96, 806 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) . "[ T ] he gove rn m en t m

ust pr ove the e xis te nc e of

an a gr ee m en t t o a ch ie ve an un law fu l obj ec tiv e an d th e de fe ndant' s kn ow ing part ic ipatio n inthat a gr ee m en t. " I d. (em phasis in original). "S ince no one can be said to have agreed to a conspiracy that they do notknow exists, proof of knowledge of the overall schem e is critical to a f ind ing of c onsp ir at or ia l i nte nt. " I d. ( em pha sis in or igi na l) . W e have "r ev er se d c onsp ir ac y

c onvi ct ion s whe re the re w as no d ir ec t pr oof of an a gr ee m en t, and the circum stantial evidence of agreem ent was insufficient to suppo rt such an inf er en ce . " Id . "T he r el at ion shi p of

buy er and s el le r ab se nt any

pr ior or c ont em por an eo us unde rs tandi ng b ey ond the m er e sa le s a gr ee m en t do es not pr ove ac onsp ir ac y

to5

se ll, r ec ei ve , bart er

or dis pose of

sto le n pr ope rty

a lth oughboth part ie s kn owof the sto le n c hara ct er

of the goo ds. U . S. v. S olo m on, 686 F . 2d 8 63, 876 ( 11th C ir . 198 (quot ing U . S. v. F or d, 324 F . 2d 9 50, 952 ( 7thCi r. 196 3) ). "T he a ct of buy ing and se lli ng m ay

or m ay not be e vid en ce of

ac onsp ir ac y . " I d. a t 87 7. "T he ke y f ac tor is the kno w le dge and unde rs tandi ng o f the part ie s a sso ci at ed w iththe buy ing and se lli ng. " I d. "I t i s th e ab se nc e of any pr ior or c ont em por an eo us unde rs tandi ng that m ak es am er e ag re em en t t o buy and s el l i nsuf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh a co nspi ra cy . " I d. "C onse que ntl y , the a ct of buy ing and s el lin g, pr ec ed ed by or co upl ed w ithac ont em

por an eo us a gr ee m en t, c anit se lf be e vid en ce of

the co nspi ra cy . " I d. H ow ev er , "i t i s w el l se ttl ed that the e xis te nc e of

asim ple buy er-se ller re lationsh ip alone does n ot furnish th e re quisi te evidence of a co nspi rator ia l a gr ee m en t. " U . S. v. Wri ght , 63 F . 3d 1 067, 107 2 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) (d isc uss ing c onsp ir ac y

to dis tr ibu te c oc ai ne ). "[ Me re ] pr es en ce or a sso ci at ion w ithoth er s in vol ve d inac ri m ina l sc he m e is n ot s uf fi ci en t t o pr ove part ic ipatio n in a conspiracy

. . . ." U. S. v. Mulherin, 710 F.2d 731, 738 (11t h Cir. 1983 ). In Uni te d S ta te s v . Men de z, 52 8 F .3d81 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) pe ti ti on forcert . tiled, (U .S . Aug. 1, 2008) (N o. 08-142), w e re cently overturned the conspi racy co nvi ct ionof

anothe r part ic ipant i n th e lic en sin g sc he m e. 528 F . 3d at 81 5- 16 (rev ers in g c on vi ct io n fo r co ns pi racy to d efra udUni te d S ta te s) . In M en de z, we6

held that fraudulentlyobtainin g a CD L did not sho w intent to defraud the U nited States. Id. at 815. A dditi onally , in dicta, we noted that th e use of the D A- 348-E fo rm and s tate m en ts i n th e Fl or ida CD L handbo ok and w eb sit e de sc ri bin g th e "f ed er al " r equir em en t, w er e not suf fi ci en t t o sh owthe r equis ite int en t t o de fr au d the U nit ed

S tate s whe re the de fe ndant h ad dif fi cu lty r ea din g E ngl ish . I d. a t 81 6. Moreover, the governm ent had to prov e the defe ndant kn ewthe United State s was to be de frau de d b y

th e sc he m e. Id . at 8 16 -1 7. Inthi s c as e, the re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce f

or ar at ion al tr ie r of

f ac t t o f ind that Vanegas c onsp ired to defraud the United States. The DA -348-E f orm Van eg as subm it te d t o o bt ai n h is CDL ask edif Van eg as was " 39 1 q ua li fie d." A cc or din g to aw itn es s, "3 91" r ef er re d to af ed er al statut e, but

the re w as no ev ide nc e V an eg as kne wthi s f ac t. T he re a lso e xis te d aCD L handbo ok i n S panis h that explained th e "391 qualifications ," but there w as no evidence Vanegas e ver read the handbook . While Vanegas had taken and failed the S panish CDL exam three tim es, only

by m ere speculation could on e conclude from this evidence that Van eg as kn ew th e Uni te d S ta te s wo ul d b e d efra ud edby his ob ta in in g aCDL. Furthe rm or e, the Me nde z co urt, in dic ta , f ound sim ilar ev ide nc e w as ins uf fi ci en t to sho w knowledge where the def endant, like Vanegas, had a lim ited unde rs tandi ng o f E ngl ish . T he re fo re , w e va cate his c onvi ct ionf or c onsp ir ac y

to7

de fr au d th e U nit ed

S tate s. II. V an eg as a lso arg ue s th at

the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s convictio n for unlawf

ul produ ction of an identification d ocum ent. V anegas argues that be ca use the ide nti fi catio n c ar d w as iss ue d by S tate e m plo y ee s, he did

not produce it. Ba ez conducted num erous transactions with people at the Hom estead drivers license office . Vanegas, howe ver, did no t produce any license prohibited by the statute. The standards set forth above apply here a s well. "U nder 18 U. S. C. § 10 28( a) ( 1 ) and ( c) (3 )( A ), it is a cr im e to unlaw fu lly

pr oduc e anide nti fi catio n do cu m en t wh en th e p ro du ct io n i s i n o r affe ct s i nt ers ta te or f or ei gn co m

m erce ." Me nde z, 528 F . 3d at 81 6. T he statut e inc lud es CD L ' s. I d. T he gov er nm en t on ly ne ed s to sho wam ini m al ne xus w ithint er state c om m er ce and i t i s su ff

ic ie nt t o showthe de fe ndant " ha d th e int en t t o a cc om pli sh a ct s, w hic h, if

suc ce ssf ul, w oul d have a ff ec te d in te rs tate " c om

m er ce . I d. a t 81 7. Whoe ve r "a ids , abe ts, c ouns el s, com m ands, induces or procures" the com m issio n of an offense a gainst th e U nited States is punish able as a principal. 18 U. S. C. § 2(a). Furtherm ore, whoever "willfully causes an ac t to be don e which if directly perform ed by

him or another wou ldbe an off

en se ag ai ns t t he Uni te d S ta te s, i s p un is habl e as a pr in ci pa l."8

18 U . S. C. § 2( b) . "[ It ] is w el l e sta bli she d th at

§ 2( b) w as de sig ne d to im pose cr im ina l l ia

bil ity on o ne w ho c au se s an in te rm ed iary to co m m it a cr im ina l a ct , ev entho ugh the int er

m ed iary w ho p er fo rm ed

the a ct ha s no c ri m ina l i nte nt and he nc e is i nnoc en t of

the sub stanti ve c ri m e ch ar ge d. " U . S. v. T obon -B uil es , 706 F. 2d 1 092, 109 9 ( 11th C ir . 198 3) . W e have r ec en tly uph el d th e co nvi ct ionof an oth er part ic ipant i n th e lic en sin g sc he m e fo r vio latio n of the above statut es on sim ilar fa ct s. S ee Me nde z, 528 F . 3d at 81 7 ( fi ndi ng s uf fi ci en t ne xus to i nte rs tate com m erce ). As to this convi ction, there w as sufficient evidence for a j ury to find that Vanegas had unl aw fully

produced an identification docum ent. ACD L is c overed by the statut e, and i nte ndi ng t o dr ive ac om m er ci al ve hic le il le ga lly

satis fi es the in te rs ta te co m

m erce requi rem en t. Whil e Van eg as di d n otpro du ce t he CDL him se lf , he sub m itt ed

the f al se D A -3 48- E f

orm and c au se d th e ex am ine r to unlawfully

issue a CD L, thereby

violatin g the statute as an aider and abettor. T he re fo re w e af

fi rm his c onvi ct ionon this c ount .

III . Vanegas argues the district court im properly denied his m otion for a m istrial w he n M ic ha el L ong, an in ve sti ga tor f or the F lor ida

H igh w ay P atro l, gave ina dm iss ibl e te sti m ony . H e as se rt s th at L ong im pr ope rl y ide nti fi ed

him by usi ng9

he ar say e vid en ce , and tha t the pr ose cu tor im pr ope rl y ide nti fi ed

V an eg as f

or L ong. Long's testim ony

wa s also unfairly

prej udicial. L ong testi fied that he had arr ested num er ous pe opl e fo r re ce ivi ng the il le ga l f orm s and tha t B ae z ha d su ppl ie d th e doc um en ts. T he te sti m ony pr ej udi ci al ly

a sso ci at ed

V an eg as w ithoth er

pe opl e ar re ste d f or r ec ei vin g C D L ' s im

pr ope rl y . C om

bin ed w iththe unf

ai r ide nti fi catio n, the te sti m ony

inf lue nc ed the ve rd ic t. W e re view a refusal to grant a m istrial for abuse of discretion. U .S . v. Dia z, 248 F.3d 106 5, 1101 ( 11th Cir. 2001). Adefendant m ust sh ow substantial pr ej udi ce in or de r to b e gr an te d am istri al . U . S. v. Ch as ta in, 198 F . 3d 1 338, 135 2 (1 1thCi r. 199 9) . T his r equir es "a r ea sona ble pr oba bil ity that . . . the out co m e of the tr ia l w oul d have be endif fe re nt. ” U . S. v. N ew som e, 475 F . 3d 1 221, 122 7 ( 11th Ci r. 200 7) c er

t. de nie d, 128 S . Ct . 218 ( 2007 ). T he "tri al j udge ha s di sc re tio n to gr an t a m istri al sin ce he is in the be st p osi tio n to e va luate the pr ej udi ci al e ff ec t of a state m en t or

e vid en ce on the j ur

y . " U . S. v. D el ga do, 321 F . 3d 1 338, 134 6- 47 (11th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation s and citation om itted). Whe re the de fe ndant h as f ai le d to r ai se the iss ue be low , w e re vie wonl y f or plain error. U .S . v. Rodriguez, 398 F. 3d 12 91, 1298 (11t h Cir. 2005 ). Additionally , w e re view f or plain error when a party raises an obj ection on appeal dif fe re nt than th e obj ec tio n to the e vid en ce r ai se d inthe dis tr ic t c ourt. U . S. v.10

W alther, 867 F.2d 1334 , 1343 (11th Cir. 1989). V anegas did no t seek a m istrial be lowba se d onL ong' s st at em en ts tha t he ha d arr es te d othe r pe opl e fo r subm itt ing fa lse D A -3 48- E f

orm s. T he re fo re , w e re vie wthat part of his arg um en t f

or pla in error . Pl ai n e rr or

r equir es the de fe ndant t o sh ow : ( 1) an e rr or ; ( 2) that i s pl ai n; ( 3) that a ff ec ts s ubst an tia l r igh ts; and ( 4) se ri ousl y a ff ec ts the f ai rn es s, int eg ri ty , or publ ic r ep utatio n of

j udi ci al pr oc ee din gs. U . S. v. Co tto n, 535 U . S. 625 , 631 , 122 S. Ct . 178 1, 178 5, 152 L . E d. 2d 8 60 ( 2002 ). A n a ppe llate c ourt sh oul d e xe rc ise pla in e rr or

r ev ie w"s pari ngl y . " J one s v. U . S. , 527 U . S. 373 , 389 , 119 S . Ct . 209 0, 2102 , 144 L . E d. 2d 3 70 ( 1999 ). Whe re "[ d] ef en se c ouns el e ff

ec tiv el y c au se d th e injury about which he now com plains . . . . [it is] invited error [and] constitu tes neither plain nor reversible err or." U. S. v. P arikh, 858 F. 2d 68 8, 695 (11th Cir. 1988 ). W e fi nd n o a

buse of dis cr et ionin the r ef

usa l t o gr an t a

m istri al be ca

use of Long's identification of Vanegas. T he prosecutor did no t im properly identify Vanegas for L ong, as L ong h ad alrea dy identified Vanegas as a

person he had ar re ste d f or sub m itt ing af

al se D A -3 48- E f

or m . A lth oughthe pr ose cu tor im properly nam ed the person identified as Vanegas before establishin g the proper fo undatio n, L ong' s te sti m ony sho w ed he ha d pe rs ona l kn ow le dge that the pe rs on11

he ide nti fi ed

w as V an eg as . T he pr ose cu tor pr ope rl y intro duc ed

the f ull ide nti fi catio n of

V an eg as , and the pr em at ur e nam ing did

not sub stanti al ly pr ej udi ce V an eg as . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t c om m it pla in e rr or

by de ny ing am istri al f

or Long's statem ents that he had arrested other people for subm itting false D A- 348-E fo rm s. T he te sti m ony

w as r el ev an t t o hi s id en tif ic at ionof V an eg as , and, on cr oss -e xam inatio n, L ong state d he ha d no t c onne ct ed V an eg as w ithany

of the oth er ind ivi dua ls arr es te d. M or eo ve r, V an eg as c hose to ad dr es s th e ar re sts in greater detail on cross exam ination , w eakening any claim of err or. Any

prej udice re sul tin g f

ro m the state m en ts w as m ini m al and unli ke ly to af fe ct the out co m e of the trial because the governm ent never ar gued there wa s a connection between V an eg as and the oth er s who h ad use d th e D A -3 48- E f

orm s. Upon re vie wof

the r ec or d and u

pon co nsi de ratio n of

the br ie fs of

the part ie s, w e fi nd n o r ev er sib le e rr or a s to V an eg as ' s c onvi ct ionf or unl aw fu l pr oduc tio n of

an id en tif

ic at iondoc um en t or

the de nia l of

his m oti on f

or am istri al . W e hol d, how ev er , that the re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to co nvi ct him of conspiracy

to defraud the U nited States. T herefor e w e vacate Vanegas's co nvi ct iona s to that c ount and r em an d f

or r e- se nte nc ing . VA CAT ED INPA RT AN D A FFI RME D IN P ART