F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Jun e 10 , 2 005 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1034 3 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-60002 -CR- JIC UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, P laintiff-Appellee, ve rs us LANETT E BLACK, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt f or the So uth er n D istri ct of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (June 10, 200 5) Be fo re BI RC H , BA RKE T T and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

L an ette Bl ac k w as ind ic te d f or c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it w ir e fr au d in co nne ct ionw ithhe r inv olv em en t i n ate le m ar ke tin g sc he m e fo r de bt c onso lid at ion se rv ic es , in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. §§ 37 1 a nd13 43 . A t tri al , Jam es Mi ch ae l C hr ist en se n te sti fi ed that he ha d r ec ru ite d B la ck to w ork f or A m an sc o, one of

tw o c om panie s he c re at ed

a s part of ade btconsoli dation scam . He explained that Am ansco rece ived refer rals fr om his oth er co m pany , F rankl in C re dit . F rankl in C re dit w oul d “ ap pr ove ” cu sto m er s f or the pr ogr am f or aone -t im e “ fe e. ” Ch ri ste nse n te sti fi ed that he c re at ed

dif fe re nt

“pitches” for the em

ploy ees to use to m islead clients, and that he m onito red Bl ac k’ s ph one c al ls at f

ir st t o e nsur e that sh e use d th e pit chc or re ct ly . T he purpos e of Bla ck’ s pitch was to m ake the client believe they had rece ived a loan until they m ade the first pay

m ent, which Am ansco would keep as a second fee, an d th ente ll the c lie nt the tr uthabout the f ir st p ay m en t. A cc or din g to Ch ri ste nse n, Bl ac k kn ewof the sc am f ro m the be ginnin g and s he kne wthat the ob ject o f th e p it ch was t o m is le adcu st om ers in to en ro ll in g i n t he pro gr am . He st at edth atBla ckne ve r co m pl ai ne d abo utth e sc am

or c on ta ct edau th or it ie s. Ch ri ste nse n te sti fi ed

that B la ck

w as pa id o n c om

m iss ionout

of that f ir st p ay m en t ba se d onthe num

be r of c ust om er s sh e enro lle d.3

Severa l em

ploy ees of F ranklin Credit and Am ansco testified that they knew they we re involved in fra

ud. A t least one other em ploy ee overhear d Black co m pla in whe n sh e re ce ive d to o f ewr ef er ra ls f ro m F rankl in, ind ic at ing that sh e kn ew of th e fraud . Severa l clients testified that they had been m islead about th e program , that they had been told th at the first pay m ent would go to cre ditors m inus a sm all fee , and that the creditors wer e never paid. O ne client testified that she called Black after learning that her cre ditors had n ot been paid, but that Black said the creditors w er e ly ing . S he state d th at Bl ac k c onvi nc ed

he r that i t w as in he r be st i nte re st t o re m ai n w iththe pr ogr am . A nothe r cl ie nt, sus pic iou s of the pr ogr am , a gr ee d to co op erat e wit h aut ho rit ie s b y tap in g c on ve rs at io ns be twee n h ers el f an d B la ck . D ur ing the se c onve rs at ion s, Bl ac k de nie d any kno w le dge of

w ho o w ne d th e co m pa ny. Af ter the governm ent rested its case-in-c hief, the district court denied Bl ack ’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al . T es tif y ing in he r ow n de fe nse , Bl ac k de nie d th at she ha d any

inv olv em en t with fr aud or that she knew the program wa s a scam . Ac cording to Black, there w as no “pit ch . ” Bl ac k st at ed that sh e onl y

pr oc es se d th e pa

pe rw ork, a lth oughshe adm itt ed that sh e w as the onl y

A m an sc o e m

plo y ee pa id o n c om

m iss ion , that sh e4

earn ed ove r $100 , 000 in o ne y ear, and tha t sh e kne wCh ri ste nse n owne d bo th co m panie s. B la ck

f urthe r adm itt ed

that sh e re ce ive d num er ous co m pla int s f ro m cl ie nts w ho w er e m isl ed

by F rankl in C re dit

e m plo y ee s, but

she e xpl ai ne d th at

she tho ught the e m plo y ee s w er e doi ng this be hin d C hr ist en se n’ s ba ck . S he state d th at , unt il the e nd, she be lie ve d C hr ist en se n w as a ct ing pr ope rl y . B la ck a dm itt ed that, w he n sh e w as arr es te d, she sa id “ I kne wit , ” but she e xpl ai ne d th at

she m eant s he kn ew th e b ro ke rs were m is le ad in g c li en ts wit ho utCh ris te ns en ’s kn owl ed ge . Black denied that any

of Christensen’ s testim ony wa s credible, and she stated that he ha d c on ne d h er l ik e h e co nn edev eryone els e. Black re sted, and the governm ent did no t offer a re buttal. Black r enewe d he r m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al , whi ch th e co ur t d en ie d. The c ourt inst ructed the j ury that, to find Black guilty of conspiracy , it had to c onc lud e that sh e know ing ly a gr ee d to de fr au d, and tha t m er e pr es en ce or ne gl ig en ce were no t en ou gh . The jury co nv ic te d B la ckof c on sp ira cy . Black m oved for j udgm ent of acquittal, or, alternatively , a new trial, which the c ourt de nie d. T he c ourt se nte nc ed Bl ac k to f

orty -s ix m onths i m

pr iso nm en t,B la c k d oe s n ot c ha lle ng e the c on sti tut ion a lity of he r s e ntenc e un der the re c e nt S up re me 1 Court d e c is io nin

U n it e d St ate s v . B o o k e r , 5 4 3 U . S. – , 1 2 5 S. Ct . 7 3 8 , 1 6 0 L . E d . 2 d 6 2 1 ( 2 005). B e c a us e sh e did no t cha lle ng e he r se nte nc e in t he dis tr ic t c ourt

or thi s c ourt , s he ha s a

ba nd on e d th is issue. See United States v. Doc kery , 401 F.3d 1261, 1262- 63 (11th Cir. 2005). B la c k do e s no t c ha lle ng e the e xiste nc e of a c on sp ir a c y or that the of fe ns e inv olv e d the us e 2 of wires in f

urthera nce of the conspirac y . She challeng es only whether there was suff

icient evidenc e to show her knowle dg e of a nd participation in the scheme.

5 thr ee y ears sup er

vis ed r el ea se , and o rd er ed

r es tit uti on i n th e am ount

of $87, 202. 30. 1 W e re vie wde nov o whe the r the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t a co nvi ct ion , vie w ing the r ec or d inthe li ght m ost f av or ab le to the ve rd ic t and dr aw ing a ll re as ona

ble inf er en ce s and r es olv ing a ll que sti ons of c re dib ili ty

in favor of the governm ent. A ccordingly , w e w ill affirm the conviction if a re as ona ble j ur or c oul d c onc lud e that the e vid en ce e sta bli she s gu ilt

be y ond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Ha sson , 333 F. 3d 12 64, 1270 (11t h Cir. 2003 ), cert . den ie d, 1 24 S.Ct . 21 95 (20 04 ). T o e sta bli sh w ir e fr au d un de r 18 U . S. C. § 13 43, the gov er nm en t m ust sho w (1 ) int en tio na l part ic ipatio n inasc he m e to d ef ra ud and ( 2) use of

the int er state w ir es in furthe ranc e of

the sc he m e. I d. T o e sta bli sh a c onsp ir ac y

und er 18 2 U. S. C. § 371 , the governm ent m ust sh ow (1) an agreem ent am ong two or m ore pe rs ons to a ch ie ve an un law fu l ob j ec tiv e; ( 2) kno w ing and v oluntary part ic ipatio n6

in the a gr ee m en t; an d ( 3) an ov er t a ct by ac onsp ir at or

in furthe ranc e of

the ag reem en t. Id . On appeal, Black ar gues that the evid ence w as insufficient to sho w her knowing andvolun tary

participation in th e schem e. Part ic ipatio n m ay

be inf er re d f ro m c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce . U nit ed S ta te s v. Ro ss, 131 F . 3d 9 70, 980 ( 11th C ir . 199 7) . T he c re dib ili ty of aw itn es s is w ith in the j ur y ’ s de te rm inatio n, and c ha lle nge s to the ve ra ci ty of aw itn es s w ill not es ta bli sh i nsuf

fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Mc Cr im

m on, 362 F . 3d 725, 730 ( 11th C ir . 200 4) ( upho ldi ng c onvi ct ionba se d onr ing le ad er ’ s te sti m ony that the defendant was aware of and participated in th e schem e, finding th at cr ed ibi lity

de te rm inatio ns w er e the r ole of the j ur y ). T his c ourt m

ust a cc ep t the jury’ s cr ed ib il it y

de te rm in at io ns un le ss th e te st im on y was i nc red ib le on it s fa ce. See United States v. Chastain, 198 F. 3d 13 38, 1351 (11t h Cir. 1999 ); U nited St at es v. Ri ve ra , 775 F . 2d 1 559, 156 1 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) . Whe n th e de fe ndant chooses to testify , she r

uns th e risk that she will bolster the governm ent’ s case, and an im plausib le explanation m ay be evidence to suppo rt the j ury ’ s verdict. See U nit ed S ta te s v. Br ow n, 53 F . 3d 3 12, 314 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) ; Unit ed S ta te s v. Bennett, 848 F. 2d 11 34, 1139 (11t h Cir. 1988 ).7

A ft er atho ro ugh re vie wof

the r ec or d, and v ie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t, w e co nc lud e that the e vid en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o es ta bli sh B la ck ’ s kn ow le dge of and p ar tic ipatio n inthe c onsp ir ac y . B y c hoos ing to t es tif y , Bl ac k r anthe r isk

that the j ur

y w oul d be lie ve Ch ri ste nse n and d isb el ie ve her. A ccordingly , w e A FFI RM.