FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 4 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble Eug ene E. Siler, J r., Unit ed S tates C ircuit J udg e for the Six th Circuit, sit ting by * desig nation. [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ N o. 05- 1328 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 20 13 9 C R-M GC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us MORAN SHEPKARU, a. k.a. Lor ain S. a.k .a. Mo ran S., De fendant-Appellee.

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

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (A ug us t 4, 200 6) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , F A Y a nd S IL E R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. * SI L E R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge :2

T he U nit ed St at es ap pe al s the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s po st- j ur y ve rd ic t of

a cquit ta l of Mor anSh ep ka ru( a. k. a. L or ai ne S
. or Mo ran S
. ) an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a lte rn at ive granting of a m otion for a new trial. The gov ernm ent contends that the district court
er re d inf ind ing ins uf

fi cien t ev ide nc e to s uppo rt the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t of

gui lty to conspiracy

to com m i t wir e fr aud. Be cause there wa s sufficient circum stantial
ev ide nc e of

ac on sp ira cy

to co m m it w ir e fr au d, w e RE V E RS E a nd V A CA T E the post-verdict judgm ent of acquittal. Howe ver, we AF FIRM the district court’ s order gr an tin g ane wtr ia l. F ACTS In 2003, Shepkaru and ten other defendants we re ind icted for: (1) conspiracy to c om m it w ir e fr au d, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. § 13 43; ( 2) w ir e fr au d, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. §§ 1842 and 3; (3) ex tortio n, in vio la tio n of 18 U
. S. C. §§ 1 951 an d 2; ( 4)
m ak ing af

al se bil l of

la din g, in vio la tio n of

49 U
. S. C. § 80 116 an d 18 U
. S. C. § 2; a nd (5 ) co ns pi racy to c omm it m on ey lau nd eri ng , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 95 6( h)
. The indictm ent charged all defe ndants with havin g been m emb er s of a conspiracy

that represe nted to the publ ic t hat they we re r eputable, long-establish ed
m ovin g com

panies that provi ded low-cost estim ates to custom ers in order to induce the c onsu m er s to hir e the c om pa ny to m ove the ir

f ur nis hin gs. S he pkaru ’ s in dic tm en t3

alleged that she com

m unicated m ovin g estim ates to cu s t o m ers vi a telephone, facs im il e, an d e -m ai l. T he ind ic tm en t furthe r al le ge d tha t se ve ra l co -c onsp ir at or s supe rv ise d lo ad ing forem en who w ould rush the custom er through the com pany ’ s pa p er work, often
ca usi ng the uns uspe ct ing c ust om er to sig n bl an k or

inc om pl et e bil ls o f la din g and other docum ents that did n o t inform the custom er of the total price for their m ove. Once the custom er’ s furnishin gs were loaded onto the m ovin g truck, the forem en would fraudulently

inflate the price of the m ove by claim ing th at the custom er had
m an y m or e cu bic f ee t of c ar go tha n init ia lly

e sti m at ed

or by ove rc ha rg ing the
cu st om er fo r m at eri al us edforpa ck in g. Whe n ac ust om er

w oul d c ont ac t the m ovi ng c om pa ny r eg ar din g del iver

y of the ir f ur nis hin gs, the c om

pa ny wou ld re fu se to de liv er the c ust om er ’ s f

ur nis hin gs unt il the c ust om er

pa id the inf

la te d pr ic e fo r the m ove . U nit ed S ta te s D ep ar

tm en t of T ranspo rt at ionr eg ula tio ns r equir e tha t a ll of ac ustom er ’ s f

ur nis hin gs m

ust be ret ur ne d u po n p aym en t o f 11 0 p erce nt of t he ori gi na l p ric e q uo t e . S e e 4 9 C .F.R. § 375. 405( b) (1 )- (1 0)
. N ev er the le ss, c o- co nspi rator s ig nor ed c om pla int s a bout the frau du le ntl y

inf la te d pr ic es a nd l ie d to c ust om er s a bout the de liv er

y of the ir furn ish ing s, som et im es usi ng f al se na m es wh en spe ak ing w ithc ust om er s ov er the ph on e o r in writ in g.Th e Un ite d State s’ s a pp e a l of a jud g me nt o f a c qu itt a l ma y be re vie we d o n a

pp e a l. United 2 States v. Shelley , 405 F.3d 1195, 1200 ( 11th Cir. 2005). 4 On O ctober 14, 2004 , S hepkaru was c onvi cted of conspiring to com m it wire fr au d, but a cquit te d of

the r em ai nin g su

bst an tiv e co unt s, w hic h incl ude d wi re f ra ud. The district court sub sequentlygranted her m otion for acquitt al and m otion for a new tr ia l. A NA LY SIS I. A cq ui tt al W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s grant of ac qui tta l unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Cr im ina l P ro ce dur e 29( c) a nd g ive no d ef er en ce to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s decis ion
. 2 U nit ed S ta te s v. W ill ia m s, 390 F
. 3d 1319 , 1323 (1 1th Ci r. 200 4)
. W e m ust de te rm ine
w he the r the e vid en ce a t tri al w as suf fi ci en t to perm it a re as ona ble tr ie r of fa ct to f

ind the defendant guilt y

bey ond a reasonable d oubt . See U nit ed S ta te s v. A lle n, 302 F
. 3d 1260 , 1262 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 44 3 U. S. 307, 319 (197 9)). W e vie wthe e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t, ac ce pti ng the j ur y ’ s r ea sona

ble inf er en ce s and cr ed ibi lity de te rm ina tio ns. G la sse r v. U nit ed S ta te s, 315 U.S . 60, 80 (1942 ), supers ed ed b y ru l e on other ground s, Bourj aily v. U nited St at es , 48 3 U.S. 1 71 (19 87 ).5

T o pr ove c onsp ir ac y unde r 18 U. S. C. § 371, the gov er nm en t m ust e sta bli sh the
ex ist en ce of

a n a gr ee m en t t o a ch ie ve a n un law fu l ob j ec tiv e, the de fe ndant’ s kn ow ing
an d vo lun tary

part ic ipa tio n inthe c onsp ir ac y , a nd the c om m iss ionof

a n overt a ct

in furtherance of the conspiracy
. United States v. Suba, 13 2 F. 3 d 6 6 2 , 672 (11t h Cir. 1998 ). T o pr ove co nspi ra cy to com m it w ir e fr au d, the gove rn m en t m ust f urthe r show
a de fe nd an t’ s in te nt t o de vis e an y sc he m e to d ef

ra ud anothe r of

m one y or pr ope rty
an d use of the w ir e fo r pur pose s of ex ec uti ng the sc he m e. 18 U
. S. C. § 1 343; Pe lle tie r v. Z w ei fe l, 921 F. 2d 1 465, 149 8 ( 11th C ir
. 199 1)
. T he sc he m e ne ed not be
carr ie d ou t bu t i f the sc he m e ha d be ene xe cu te d, it w oul d de ce ive ar eas ona bly prudent person
. Id

. a t 14 98- 99. The e xistence of an agree m ent m ay be proven by

circum stantial evidence, inc lud ing “ inf

er en ce s f ro m the co nduc t of

the a lle ge d part ic ipants or f ro m ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce of a sc he m e. ” U nit ed St at es v. S ilv es tr i, 409 F
. 3d 1 311, 132 8 (1 1th Ci r. 2005 ). T he gove rn m en t m ay es ta bli sh know le dge of

a n il le ga l a gr ee m en t by sho win g t ha t t he de fen da nt “ kn ew th e es s e n t i a l ob ject o f th e co ns pi racy.” Id. Moreover, in review ing th e pro s ec u t i o n ’ s case, we drawno dist inction betwee n circum stantial and direct evidence. Unite d S ta te s v. N av ar ro -O rd as , 770 F
. 2d 9 59, 966 (11t h Cir. 1985 ). “ It is not neces s ar y fo r t h e evidence to exclude every
re as ona ble hy pothe sis of inn oc en ce or be w hol ly inc onsi ste nt w ith ev er y c onc lus ion6

except that of guilt , provided a re asonable trier of f act could find that the evidence
es t ab l i s h es g u i l tb eyo n da r ea s o n ab l e d o ub t .’” U nit ed S ta te s v. W ar d, 197 F. 3d 1 076, 10 79 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)
. T he gov er

nm en t a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt c om

m itte d se ve ra l f

ac tua l and le ga l e rr or s th at

inc lud ed ove rl ooking p ro ba tiv e ev ide nc e of S he pkaru ’ s kn ow ing participation in th e schem e. Shepkaru re s p o n ds that there wa s no eviden ce of an express agreem ent betwee n her and any one else. She acknowledges that ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce m ay e sta bli sh the e xis te nc e of

a co nspi rator ia l ag re em en t bu t onlywher e the infere nces are rea sonable. She a sserts that th ere is no evid ence sugg es tin g c onsp ir at or ia l m ee tin gs, pr oof that sh e re ce ive d th e thr ee pe rc en t of the tot al m ove pr ic e, or re co rd s r ef le ct ing the e m

plo y ee paym en t sc he dul es a nd am ount s. T he e vid en ce e sta

bli she d th at

S he pkaruw orke d a t the m ovi ng c om pa ny w ith
co nst an tly ch an gin g nam es f or ove r tw o y ears a nd tha t sh e earn ed c om m iss ion s f

ro m the am ount collected fr om som e m oves. At a m inim um , S hepkaru would have been
aw are that custom ers’ bills had been increased and that som e fr audulent sch em e w as afo ot . In de ed , the gov er

nm en t m ay

e sta bli sh know le dge of

a n il le ga l a gr ee m en t by showing th at the defendant knew the e ssential ob j ect of t h e conspiracy
. Shepkaru originated the lo w bids. The victim s’ testim ony established that Shepkaru negotiated7

the or igi na l of

fe rs w ith out

r ec ei vin g a ssi stanc e fro m oth er s. Matth ewN as sbaum te sti fi ed that his ori gin al quot e fr om Sh ep ka ru w as es ca la te d fr om $2, 900 to $ 8, 400. He also testified that he realize d he had been duped on his original m ove and called the m ovi ng co m

pa ny , posi ng as a ne w cu sto m er . H e sta te d he spok e to S he pkaruw ho provided the sam e quote and re i t er ated that he would not be charged for additional
cu bic f oot ag e unl es s an e xtr a tr

uc k w as r equir ed
. B enG er sh a lso te sti fi ed th at hi s in it ia l q uo te fro m

Sh ep ka ru at $ 75 0 was in crea se d t o $ 5,3 00
. Although coconspirator Toledano’ s testim ony did not unequi vocally state that Sh ep ka rua gr ee d to pa rt ic ipa te in w ir e fr au d, som e of his te sti m ony

w as suf fi ci en t t o pe rm it a reas onabl e j ur

y to co nc lud e tha t S he pkarukne wof a nd p ar tic ipa te d inthe schem e. H e testified that Shepkaru w as working with the m ovin g com pany before he a rr ive d an d co nti nue d to w ork as the c om pa ny c onst an tly

c ha nge d nam es due to its bad reputation
. He stated th at ev en thoug h other em ploy ees, includin g him self, qui t w or kin g f or the c om pa ny due to th ei r di sg ust

w ithit s bu sin es s pr ac tic es , Sh ep ka ruc ont inu ed

w orkin g. H e sta te d that Sh ep ka ru w as co m pe nsa te d by

aw ee kly
sa lary plu s a thr ee pe rc en t c om

m iss ionof

the tot al the c ust om er

pa id a s e vid en ce d by
m ult ipl e j ob r ep orts. H e spe ci fi ca lly te sti fi ed that the m ovi ng c om

pa ny c ha nge d it s
nam e b ecause of its bad reputation , c ustom er c om plaints, and fraud. H e stated that Sh ep ka rukne w of an d w as pa id by co m m iss ion s of the tot al a m ount c oll ec te d f

ro m8

the m ove s be ca

use e ac h sa le spe rs on m ai nta ine d ali st o f the or igi na l es tim at es an d th e
am ou nt co ll ect ed
. T he gov er

nm en t pr es en te d se ve ra l do cu m en ts i n S he pkaru ’ s handw ri tin g show ing asub stanti al dif fe re nc e be tw ee n th e or igi na l est im at e an d th e am ount
co lle cte d, a nd tha t 99 pe rc en t of the c ust om er s w er e ove rc ha rg ed f or m ove s. T ole da no t es tif

ie d th at se ve ra l of

the m ovi ng e sti m at e or igi na l bi ds w er e in Sh ep ka ru ’ s ha ndw ri tin g an d tha t he spok e w ith Sh ep ka ru ab out “ how m uc h t he
cu sto m er a ct ua lly pa id f or the m ove . ” I n a ddi tio n, T ole da no t es tif ie d th at the m ovi ng
co m pa ny ow ne r, van dr ive rs , he , a nd S he pkarum et in the of fi ce to dis cu ss m ak ing
m or e m one y . Aj ur

y c oul d re as on ab lyinf

er that su chm ee tin gs c onc er ne d th e frau du le nt bu si ne ss pra ct ic es gi ve n t he na tu re o f th e b us in es s. Sh ep ka rua rg ue s th at

she onl y prov ide d th e quot es a nd d id n ot i nc re as e the pr ic es , thu s a

bsol vin g he r fr om

the c onsp ir ac y

to de fr au d. Fo r ins tanc e, as part of the FB I’ s un de rc ove r m ove , S he pkaruc om pe tit ive ly ne got ia te d alow er

pr ic e aft er the agent claim ed that a rival m over offer ed a l o we r price. T he responsiv e em ail wa s
s i g n ed b y Lo ra n S. , wh i ch wa s Sh ep k aru ’s al i as . Co n t ra ry t o t h e d i s t ri ct c o u r t ’s conclu s i o n , ther e is evidence to perm it a j ury to reasonably

find that Shepkaru
or ig in at edth e lo w bal l b id s.9

The e vi de nc e p r e se nt e d a tt r i a l s ho w s t hatS he pk a r u’ s of f e r s t o c on sum ers
we re inconsistent and invol ved m isstatem ents. O n m ultip le occasi o n s , t he prices
w er e al m ost doub le the ini tia l qu ote . F or ins tanc e, O nsgard

/L en z quot ed

“ al l inc lus ive ” $850 a nd charg ed $19 40 f or ahandl ing f

ee ; an $8 80 m ovi ng f

ee ba se d on
c ub i c f o o t a g e w a s i n c r e a s e db e c au s e i tw a s c a l c u l a t e do n w e i g h tc o n t r a ry t o t h e t e rms of S he pkaru ’ s pr ic e quot e; a n a ll- inc lus ive $75 0 of fe r in crea se d to $5, 300 due to ad dit ion al la

bor a nd ins ur an ce ch ar ge s, w hic h la te r w er e dis co ve re d to be fa lse ; and N as sbaum ’ s $2 , 900 al l- inc lus ive of fer w as inc re as ed

to $8, 400 by

pic k up c ost s despite Shepkaru’ s assurances that the initial qu ote was the com plete cost unless an additio nal van was r equired. Mor eover, Toledano testified that h e an d Shepkaru discuss ed the am ount that the custom er paid for th e m o v e and that custo m ers w ere be ing li ed

to. H e al so s ai d th at

S he pkaruw as the onl y

one who stay ed

w iththe
com pany . Based upon th ese st atem ents, th e jury could reasonablyinfer that she w as p l ac i n g a l o w b al l b i d t o l u r e c u s t o m er s i n t o a t ra n s ac t i o n . F ro m To l ed an o ’s testim ony that Shepkaru rec eived a co mm issio n for the am ount charged ea ch
cu st om er, t he jury co ul d i m pu te kn owl ed ge of t he frau d. A j ury could reasonably

infer by the follow-up calls t hat Shepkaru had agreed to par tic ipa te in the c onsp ir ac y . E vid en ce e sta bli she d th at

S he pkarur ec ei ve d c al ls pl ac ed b y d isgrunt led custom ers – som etim es the sam e custom ers she extended an10

of fe r to – that sh e of

te n ig nor ed
. S he did

not in fo rm th e cus tom er s th at the ir poss essions could be redeem ed on paym ent of 110 percent of the i nitial estim ate, althoug h s h e wa s personally notified of this requirem ent by FBI Agent W illiam Sc hur ek
. Aj ur

y c oul d r ea sona

bly be li eve f

ro m S he pkaru ’ s c ondu ct

that sh e know ing ly

part ic ipa te d ina co nspi ra cy to d ef ra ud those c ust om er s. T he e le m en ts o f
co nspi ra cy

do n ot r eq ui re a sh ow ing that S he pkarur ec ei ve d he r thr ee pe rc en t
co m m iss ione ve n th oughT ole da no t es tif ie d th at she r ec ei ve d c om

m iss io ns fr om frau du le nt m ov es . The district court w as legally incorre ct in finding that direct evidence of a
co ns pi rat or ia l ag reem en t i s re qu ire d. Se e Si lve str i, 409 F. 3d a t 13 28; W ill ia m s, 390 F.3 d at 132 4. Mo re ove r, the dis tr ic t c ourt i nc or re ct ly ign or ed the j ur y f ind ing s agai n s t Shepkaru’ s version of events and d ism issed all reasonable circum stantial
ev ide nc e. W ill ia m s, 390 F. 3d at 1324 (r ev er sin g acquit ta l w he re the dis tr ic t c ourt di d not appl y the c or re ct s ta nd ard re qui ri ng r es olu tio n of f ac ts “ in f

av or of the gove rn m en t” a nd a cc ep tanc e of a ll reasonab le inf

er en ce s insup port of

the gove rn m en t’ s c as e) ; se e al so Un ite d Sta te s v. Mi randa , 425 F. 3d 953, 961 -6 2 ( 11th Ci r. 20 05 ) (rev ers in g p os t-t ria l ju dg m en t o f acq ui tt al ). Inc onc lus ion , the gov er nm en t sh ow ed

that S he pkaru was en ga ged ina sy ste m at ic sc he m e to pr ovi de low of fe rs to i nduc e cu sto m er s of the m ovi ng c om

pa ny11

to u se the ir

se rv ic es by

use of the e le ctro nic m ai l and t el ep ho ne. T houg h th e governm ent’ s m ore specific theories failed for la ck of evidence, the rec ord was suf fi ci en t t o a llo war ea sona

ble f ind er of fa ct to con cl ude tha t She pkaruc onsp ir ed to
en ga ge in a fr au dul en t sc he m e to d ef ra ud c ust om er s of both m one y an d prop er ty by
us in g t he wire s. II. N ew Tr ial A sea rc h warrant exec uted at Shepkaru’ s work place y ielded a substant ial
number o f r e c or ds , i nc l ud i ng b i l l s. T he d oc um e nt s w e r e d i sc l os e d i n pr e trial dis co ve ry a nd i ntr oduc ed

int o ev ide nc e at tr ia l. T he gove rn m en t cr ea te d a ch ar t f ro m the se iz ed re co rd s show ing ea chind ivi dua l m ovi ng c ontra ct ini tia l qu ote , the ult im at e bill, 110 percent of the original bid , and a perc entage and actual differ ence betw een 11 0 p erce nt of t he in it ia l q uo te an d t he fin al bi ll
. T he gr an t of

ane wtr ia l i s r ev ie w ed

f or abuse of dis cr etio n bu t the abuse of dis cr et ionstandard

e m plo y ed in thi s si tua tio n is m or e ex ac tin g. Se e U nit ed S ta te s v. H er na nde z, 433 F
. 3d 1328, 1335 -3 6 (11th Cir
. 2005 ). A dis tr ic t c ourt m ay w ei gh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses, but it m ay not set aside the verdict unless allo wing the verdict to stand would result in a m iscarria ge of j ustice. B utcher v. U nited States , 36 8 F .3d 12 90 , 12 97 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ).12

T he dis t r i c tc o u rtf

o u n dt h a tt h e s u m

m a ry c h a rta n dt h e c o m

m i s s i o n s he et s
w er e vit al to the gove rn m en t’ s proo f tha t She pkaru w as aw ar e of a nd b en ef

itt ed f ro m the f ra ud o cc ur ri ng a t the pla ce of em

plo y m en t. A s su ch , the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng tha t S he pkaru ’ s su bs ta nti al r igh ts w er e “ af fe ct ed to suc h ade gr ee by

the gove rn m en t’ s in tr oduc tio n of the summ ary ch ar

t and unde rl y ing bus ine ss r ec or ds”
an d g ran t o f a n ew tr ia l wer e n ot an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. T he gove rn m en t dow npl ay s the ch ar t as onl y ha vin g th e pot en tia l f

or m isu se even thoug h its inform ation is accurate. T he governm ent does no t address the fact tha t a cc ur at e inf

orm at ion can be used to cr ea te ina cc ur at e inf er en ce s, w hic h w as the case here. Providing a jury with a chart th at l ists 14 4 “ victim s,” w ithou t showing th at
ea ch l i s t ed p er s o n wa s ac tu al l y a v i ct i m , i s s u f f i c i e n t t o s up p o rt t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s finding of p rej udice for a new trial. Moreover, the insin uation th at Shepkaru re ceived
a com m issio n from the total am ount billed for each of the 144 so-called “ victim s” –
ev entho ugh it w as not

the a m ount

a ct ua lly c oll ec te d ine ac h cas e – m ay li ke w ise be pr ej udi ci al
. T he re fo re , the j udgm en t of ac qui tta l is RE V E RS E D an d VA CA T E D , an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s g ran ti ng of a ne w tri al is AFFIRM ED.