F ILED U.S. CO URT OF AP P EALS ELEVENTH CI RCUIT Janua ry 6 , 20 09 THO MAS K . KAHN CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 14 81 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 44 8- CR-T-2 7- MSS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us BETTY CHANDLE R TRENT, 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 Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry6, 2 00 9) Befo re ANDERSON, BIRC H andHULL, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Bet ty Chan dl er Tren t ap pe al s h er co nv ic ti on s an d 2 4- m on th sen te nc es for

co ns pi racy to c omm itoff en se s ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s i n v io lati onof 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3 71 , 66 6( a)(1 )(A)(i ), an d (i i), the ft b y anag en t o f anorg an iz at io n o f a s ta te an d l oc al go ve rn m en t i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 an d 6 66 (a)( 1) (A)(i ) an d (i i), m ak in g fa ls e cl ai m s t o a n a ge nc y of t he Uni te d S ta te s i n v io la ti onof 1 8 U.S.C. §§ 2 an d 2 87 , th eftfro m

th e Uni te d S tate s i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 an d 6 41 , fal si fic at io n o f rec or ds ina fed eral in ve st ig at io n i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 an d 1 51 9, an d m ak in g fa ls e an d fr au du le ntst at em en ts invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 1 00 1. Acco rd in g t o the in di ctm en t, Tren t, the ex ecu ti ve di rect orof t he Bro ok sv il le Hou si ng Autho rit y (BHA), a p ub li c h ou si ng au th or ity (PHA) es tabl is he d u nd er the U.S. Hou si ng Act o f 19 37 , all eg ed ly con sp ire d wi th Jo e Ann Ben ne tt , th e p ro

ject m an ag er fo r BHA, to un jus tl y en ric h t he m se lv es by creat in g fal se an d fr au du le ntbi ll s an d i nv oi ces forservi ces pu rp orte dl y pro vi de d t o B HA fro m Decem be r 20 01 un ti l Oct ob er 2 00 6. On ap pe al , Trentarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby den y in g h er m ot io n in li m in e an d a dm it ti ng au di ot ap e rec or di ng s o f co nv ers at io ns be twee n h ers el f, he r co -co ns pi rat or , anda go ve rn m en t i nf orm an t b ecau se th ey

co nt ai ne d h ears ay . She as se rts th athe r co -co ns pi rat or ’s st at em en ts were m ad e aft er the ces sa ti on of t he co ns pi racy in M ay

20 03 , andth ey

were n otm ad e in furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy, 2bu t ra th er fu rth ereda se pa rat e co ns pi racy to c on ceal he r pr io r co nduc t. Fu rth er,

sh e m ai nt ai ns th atth e p ro ba ti ve va lu e o f th e in fo rm an t’s s tate m en ts was subs tant ia ll y

ou twei gh edby the ris k o f pr ejud ic e b ecau se m an y of t he co ns pi rat or s’ st at em en ts were i naud ib le . W e rev ie w “ th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on to gra ntor t o d en y a m ot io n i n li min e fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Fern an de z-Lari os , 40 2 F.3 d 1 14 8, 1 16 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . “ An ab us e o f di sc ret io n a ris es when th e d is tri ct co urt’s d eci si on res ts up ona cl earl y erro ne ou s fi nd in g o f fac t, an errantco nc lu si on of law, o r anim

pr op er ap pl ic at io n o f la w to fact .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bak er, 4 32 F.3 d 1 18 9, 1 20 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) . The re i s n ot“ any

form ul is ti c st an da rdto gu id e th e admis si bi li ty of tape s an d tra ns cri pt s.” Un it edSta te s v . Green fie ld , 57 4 F .2d30 5, 3 07 (5t h C ir. 1 97 8) .

“ Tap es are n otpe r se in adm is si bl e b ecau se th ey are p art ia ll y

in au di bl e; th e is su e is whe th er the un in te ll ig ib le po rti on s ‘are s o s ub st an ti al as t o re nd er the reco rd in g a s a who le un tru st worth y . This de te rm in at io n i s l eftto th e so un d d is cret io n o f th e tri al jud ge .’ ” Id . (qu ot in g Un it edSta te s v . Avi la , 44 3 F .2d79 2, 7 95 (5t h Ci r. 19 71 )); see als o Un it edSta te s v . Pop e, 13 2 F .3d68 4, 6 88 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ).

“ ‘H ears ay ’ is a st at em en t, o th er tha n o ne m ad e b y th e d ecl aran t wh il e te st ifyin g a t the tri al or h eari ng , off eredinev id en ce t o p ro ve th e trut h o f th e m atte r 3as se rte d.” Fed .R.Evi d. 8 01 (c). Ho wev er, anin fo rm an t’s s ta te m en ts are

adm is si bl e n otforth e tr

ut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d, b utforth e p ur po se of p la ci ng a co ns pi rat or ’s comm en ts inco nt ex t fo r th e jury. See Un it edSta te s v . Sm ith, 9 18 F.2 d 1 55 1, 1 55 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) . Furt he r, anou t-o f-co urt s ta te m en t o ffer edfor th e truth o f th e m atte r as se rte d i s n othe ars ay if i t i s b ei ng off

eredag ai ns t a p arty , an d i t i s a s ta te m en t o f a co -co ns pi rat orth atwas m ad e dur in g t he co ur se an d i n furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy. Fed .R.Evi d. 8 01 (d )(2 )(E). To es tabl is h t he adm is si bi li ty of a s ta te m en t u nd er Ru le 80 1( d) (2 )(E), “ th e go ve rn m en t m

us t p ro ve by a prep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t (1 ) a co ns pi racy ex is te d, (2 ) th e co ns pi racy inc lu de d t he de cl aran t an d t he de fen da ntag ai ns t wh om th e st at em en t i s o ffer ed , and(3) th e st at em en t was m ad e dur in g the co ur se of a nd in furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy.” Unit edSta te s v . Und erwo od , 44 6 F.3 d 1 34 0, 1 34 5- 46 (11 thCir . 20 06 ). “ Whe n d et erm in in g wh ethe r th e ab ov e el em en ts ha ve be ensat is fie d, the di st ric t co urt m ay rel y on in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d by the co -co ns pi rat or ’s pro ffer edst at em en t as well as i nd ep en de ntex te rn al ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Mil es , 29 0 F .3d13 41 , 13 51 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). W e ap pl y “ a li be ral st an dardinde te rm in in g wh ethe r a s tate m en t i s m ad e in furth eran ce o f a co ns pi racy.” Id. “ The st at em en t n eedno t b e n eces sa ry to th e co ns pi racy, butm

us t o nl y furth er the in te res ts of t he co ns pi racy in s om e way .” Id .

4Howev er, s tate m en ts by a con sp ira to r aft er the ces sa ti on of t he co ns pi racy,

“ an d wh ic h a re m erel y

na rrat iv e o f pa stev en ts (th ou gh inform a co nf es si on , i.e., anadmis si on of t he co ns pi racy), are n otrece iv ab le ag ai ns t a f el lo w-co ns pi rat or , un le ss th e la tt er was pre se ntwhen th ey were m ad e an d h eardth em , andex pr es sl y orby im pl ic at io n a cqui es cedinth em .” Cla rkv. Un it edSta te s, 6 1 F .2d40 9, 4 10 (5 th Cir . 19 32 ). Furth er, “ [s ]tate m en ts m ad e aft er the ces sa ti onof t he pri m ary pu rp os e o f th e co ns pi racy tha t s erv edon ly to co nc eal th e co ns pi racy are no t pr ot ect edby [Rul e 8 01 (d )(2 )(E)].” Unit edSta te s v . Grig gs , 73 5 F.2 d 1 31 8, 1 32 4- 25 (11 thCir . 19 84 ). Neve rth el es s, “ [c]on ceal m en t i s s om et im es a n eces sa ry

pa rt o f a co ns pi racy, so tha t s ta te m en ts m ad e so le ly to ai d t he co nc eal m en t ar e in factm ad e dur in g a ndinfurth eran ce o f th e ch arg ed co ns pi racy.” Id. at13 25 . “ Thi s i s p art ic ul arl y tru e in cas es . . . [wh ere] th e o bjec t of th e co ns pi racy . . . was n otin su lar bu t co nt in uo us .” Id . The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dm it ti ng th e au di ot ap e reco rd in gs be cau se Tren t’s co -co ns pi rat orm ad e th e st at em en ts du rin g andin furth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy, andth e in fo rm an t’s s ta te m en ts were ad mis si bl e to pr ov id e co nt ex t. Whil e th e Sep te m be r 20 , 20 06 , reco rd in g was pa rti al ly inaud ib le atti m es du e to cro wd n oi se at t he res taur an t, the tra ns cri ptde m on st rat es th atTren t an d B en ne ttm ad e num ero us in cri m in at in g s ta te m en ts reg ard in g t he ir a tt em pt s t o 5co nv in ce M oo re t o s ub m itfal se st at em en ts to fed eral in ve st ig at or s. Thus , th e

co nv ers at io n was no t s o s ub st an ti al ly inaud ib le as t o re nd er “ th e rec or di ng as a who le un tru stworth y ,” an d the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n adm it ti ng th e au di ot ap es . See Gree nf ie ld , 57 4 F .2dat 3 07 . As fo r th e st at em en ts by Benn et t, Tren t m ai nt ai ns th athe r st at em en ts were no t m ad e dur in g t he co ur se of andinfurth eran ce o f th e co ns pi racy un de r Fed .R.Evi d 8 01 (d )(2 )(E). Howev er, the reco rd edco nv ers at io ns all oc cu rredfro m May to Se pt em

be r 20 06 pri orto th e ces sa ti on of t he co ns pi racy in Oct ob er 2 00 6 a s al le ge d i n t he supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t. Fu rth er, the st at em en ts di sc us se d s pe ci fic ov ertact s o f th e co ns pi racy, inc lu di ng Tren t an d B en ne tt ’s in vo lv em en t i n fi li ng a fal se tax return o n b eh al f of Mo or e inJu ly 200 6, the co -co ns pi rat or s’ att em ptto co nv in ce M oo re t o s ub m itfal se st at em en ts to fed eral ag en ts inSep te m be r 20 06 , an d Tre nt ’s subm is si on of f al se st at em en ts to fed eral ag en ts inOcto be r 20 06 . Mo reo ve r, ev enif the st at em en ts were m ad e aft er the ces sa ti onof t he pri m ary pu rp os e o f th e al le ge d c on sp ira cy , th ey rel at edto Tren t an d B en ne tt ’s att em pt s t o co nc eal th ei r un lawfu l co nduc t b y fil in g fa ls e in co m e ta x re tu rn s an d l y in g t o fed eral in ve st ig at or s. Bec au se th e co -co ns pi rat or s en ga ge d i n aco nt in ui ng sc he m e o f th eftfro m

th e BHA fro m

20 01 un ti l atlea st20 03 , th e co ns pi racy was no t “ in su lar,” an d t he co nc eal m en t was a ne ces sa ry pa rt o f th e co ns pi racy. See 6Grig gs , 73 5 F .2dat 1 32 5 (c om pa rin g s ch em es of t ax ev as io n a ndfrau d t o a co ns pi racy to a vo idimm ig rat io n l aw th ro ug h ash am m arri ag e). Thu s, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g tha t Be nn et t’s s ta te m en ts were adm is si bl e as st at em en ts of aco -co ns pi rat orun de r Fed .R.Evi d. 8 01 (d )(2 )(E). Add it io na ll y , Trentarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n pe rm it ti ng th e jury to re vi ew a tr an sc rip t o f anau di ot ap e rec or di ng du rin g de li be rat io ns up on reque stby the jury. She ass ert s tha t the pa rti es di d n otst ip ul at e to th e acc ur acy of th e tr an sc rip t, an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t d et erm in e whe th er i t accu rat el y

rep res en te d t he reco rd in g. Sh e subm it s tha t the erro r was no t h arm le ss be cau se th e jury rend eredit s v erd ic t al m os t i m m ed ia te ly after r ev ie win g t he tra ns cri pt . W e rev ie w a “ di st ric t co urt’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r anab us e o f di sc ret io n.” Uni te d S tate s v . Pue nt es , 50 F.3d15 67 , 15 77 (11 th Cir . 19 95 ). “ Whe n ajury co ns id ers ev id en ce s ub m it te d t o i t, n o re ve rs ib le erro r oc cu rs jus t b ecau se th e ev id en ce was no t fo rm al ly m ark edin to ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Cos ta , 69 1 F.2 d 1 35 8, 1 36 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) . Dist ric t co urts ha ve “ th e au th or ity to all ow juri es to readpro pe rly authe nt ic at edtra ns cri pt s wh il e li st en in g t o t ap ed co nv ers at io ns .” Uni te d S tate s v . Garci a, 85 4 F .2d12 80 , 12 83 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ).

“ The ne edor d es ire fortra ns cri pt s ar is es ge ne ral ly from two cir cu m st an ces :” when 7“po rti on s o f a t ap e . . . [are] relat iv el y in au di bl e” o r “ it. . . [is ] di ffi cu ltto id en ti fy th e sp eak ers .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Ono ri, 5 35 F.2d93 8, 9 47 (5t h C ir. 1 97 6) . In ei th er cas e, “ itis withi n t he di sc ret io n o f th e tr ia l co urt t o a ll ow a t ran sc rip t t o b e u se d b y th e jury to a ss is t the jury as itli st en s t o t he tap e.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . The pro pe r pr oc edur e fo r th e p ro du ct io n o f tr an sc rip ts pro vi de s tha t “ th e di st ric t co urt an d the parti es sh ou ldm ak e aneffo rt t o p ro du ce an ‘ of fic ia l’ or ‘sti pu la te d’ tra ns cri pt , on e whi chsat is fie s al l s id es .” Garci a, 85 4 F .2dat 1 28 3 (quo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . W il so n, 5 78 F.2d67 , 69 -7 0 (5 thCir . 19 78 )). “ If s uc h a n ‘offi ci al ’ tra ns cri ptcan no t b e p ro du ced , th eneach si de sh ou ldpro du ce i ts own ve rs io n o f a tran sc rip t o r it s o wn v ers io n o f th e d is pu te d p orti on s,” a nd“ each si de m ay pu t o n e vi de nc e supp orti ng th e acc ur acy of it s v ers io n o r ch al le ng in g the accu racy of th e o th er s id e’s ve rs io n.” Id. “ [T]he u se of t ran sc rip ts is no t re st ric te d to th e ti m e o f pr es en ti ng th e tape s t o t he jury. ” Uni te d S tate s v . Bro wn, 8 72 F.2 d 3 85 , 39 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) . “ Abs en t a s ho win g t ha t the tra ns cri pt s wer e in accu rat e o r th atsp eci fic pre jud ic e o ccu rred , th ere i s n o e rro r in all owi ng tra ns cri pt s t o g o t o the jury ro om .” Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li fo rd , 76 4 F.2 d 1 49 3, 1 50 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 5) . The di stric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y pe rm it ti ng th e jury to rev ie w a tra ns cri ptof a n aud io tape reco rd in g dur in g d el ib erat io ns be cau se po rti on s 8of

th e rec or di ng were i naud ib le , andth e co nv ers at io n i nv ol ve d m ul ti pl e sp eak ers . Whi le th e p art ie s d idno t s ti pu late to anoff ic ia l tran sc rip t, Tren t d idno t p ro du ce he r own ve rs io n o f th e tr an sc rip t o r he r own ve rs io n o f th e d is pu te d p orti on s. See Garci a, 85 4 F .2dat 1 28 3. Al th ou gh Tren t s pe cu late s tha t s om e p orti on s o f th e tra ns cri ptwere i na ccu rat e, sh e d oe s n otde m on st rat e h ow the se in accu raci es cau se d a ny spe ci fic pre

jud ic e, es pe ci al ly con si de rin g t ha t the all eg edin accu raci es di d n otin vo lv e an y

of t he in cri m in at in g s ta te m en ts by T ren t o r Ben ne tt . Furt he r, Tren t's arg um en t tha t s he co ul d n otan ti ci pa te th e jury's reque stforth e tr an sc rip t du rin g d el ib erat io ns is di si ng enuo us , bec au se sh e ex pl ic it ly spe cu la te d a s m uc h i n he r m ot io n i n l im in e. Becaus e p orti on s o f th e Sep te m be r 20 , 20 06 , reco rd in g wer e in au di bl e, an d the reco rd in g i nv ol ve d aco nv ers at io n wi th m ul ti pl e sp eak ers , th e di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a ll owi ng th e jury to u se th e tr an sc rip ts as anaidinrev ie win g t he au di ot ap e. Tren t al so arg ue s tha t the re was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s up po rt h er co nv ic ti on s u nd er 1 8 U.S.C. § § 2 87 , 37 1, an d 6 41 . She ass ert s tha t the go ve rn m en t fa il edto sh ow tha t h er fa ls e cl ai m s wer e actua ll y subm it te d t o t he Uni te d S tate s und er § 28 7, tha t the fun ds were p ro pe rty of the Uni te d S ta te s u nd er § 6 41 , or tha t s he co ns pi redto de frau d t he Uni te d S ta te s u nd er § 37 1 b ecau se he r

9co nduc t t arg et edBHA rathe r th anth e Dep art m en t o f Hou si ng an d Urb an

Dev el op m en t (HUD). Ord in ari ly, we rev ie w th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce s up po rti ng a cri m in al co nv ic ti on de no vo . Uni te d S ta te s v . W al ke r, 49 0 F .3d12 82 , 12 96 (11 th Ci r. 20 07 ), cert . den ie d, 1 28 S.Ct . 16 49 (20 08 ). Howev er, we rev ie w on ly for pl ai n e rro r whe re a d efen da ntm ov edforjud gm en t o f acqui tt al on su ffi ci en cy -o fth e-ev id en ce g ro un ds be fo re the di st ric t co urt, b utfai le d t o a rti cu la te th e sp eci fic su ffi ci en cy -o f-the -ev id en ce cl ai m lat er rai se d o n app eal . Uni te d S tate s v . Hun erl ach , 19 7 F .3d10 59 , 10 68 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Und er p la in erro r rev ie w, we wil l re ve rs e o nl y

if “ (1 ) anerro r oc cu rred ; (2 ) th e err orwas p la in ; (3 ) itaffe ct ed [th e d efen da nt ’s] subs tant ia l ri gh ts ; an d (4 ) itser io us ly affect edth e fai rn es s o f th e jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Gresh am , 32 5 F .3d12 62 , 12 65 (11 th Ci r. 20 03 ). The di stric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a “ m ot io n[ ] fo r a jud gm en t o f acqui tt al wil l b e up he ldif areas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d c on cl ud e th atth e ev id en ce es tabl is he s the de fen da nt ’s gu il t b ey on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Un it edSta te s v . Rod rig ue z, 21 8 F.3 d 1 24 3, 1 24 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) . “ It i s n otne ces sa ry th atth e ev id en ce ex cl ud e ev ery reas on ab le hypo th es is of i nn oc en ce o r be who ll y in co ns is te ntwith e ve ry co nc lu si on ex cep t tha t o f gu il t, p ro vi de d areas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d fi ndth at 10th e ev id en ce es tabl is he s g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Un it edSta te s v .

You ng , 90 6 F .2d61 5, 6 18 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). Thi s i s s o b ecau se “ [a] jury is free to ch oo se am on g re as on ab le co ns tru ct io ns of t he ev id en ce.” Un it edSta te s v . Vera, 7 01 F.2d13 49 , 13 57 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). To s ho w a fal se cla im

un de r 18 U.S.C. § 2 87 , th e g ov ern m en t m us t p ro ve (1 ) “ [t]ha t the de fen da ntm ad e o r pr es en te d afal se , fic ti ti ou s, o r frau du le ntcla im to a de pa rtment o f th e Uni te d S ta te s” ; (2 ) “ [t]ha t the de fen da ntkn ew su chcla im was fal se , fic ti ti ou s, o r frau du le nt ”; an d (3 ) “ [t]ha t the de fen da ntdi d s o wi thth e sp eci fic in te ntto vi ol at e th e la w or wi th a co ns ci ou sn es s tha t wh athe was d oi ng was wron g.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Slo cu m , 70 8 F .2d58 7, 5 96 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). “ [A] pe rs on m ay

be gu il ty of cau si ng a fal se cla im to be pre se nt edto th e Uni te d S ta te s [und er § 28 7] ev enth ou gh he us es anin no cen t i nt erm ed iary . . . to actua ll y

pa ss on th e cl ai m s t o t he Uni te d S tate s.” Un it edSta te s v . Beas le y , 55 0 F .2d26 1, 2 72 (5t h Ci r. 19 77 ). Thu s, “ fal se cla im s s ub m it te d t o t he st at e whe n t he cla im an ts kn ew th atth e st at e wou ldrel y

onth [o ]se cl ai m s fo r rei m bu rs em en t fr om

th e fed eral go ve rn m en t p ur su an t t o ajoi ntfed eral -s ta te pro gr am fal l wi th in th e fed eral fal se cl ai m s s ta tu te .” Id . at 2 73 -7 4. A def en da ntm ay

be co nv ic te d fo r th eftof g ov ern m en t p ro pe rty un de r 18 U.S.C. § 6 41 if the go ve rn m en t es tabl is he s (1 ) “ th atth e m on ey or p ro pe rty 11be lo ng edto th e g ov ern m en t” ; (2 ) “ th atth e d efen da ntfrau du le nt ly app ro pr ia te d t he

m on ey or p ro pe rty to h is ownus e o r th e u se of o th ers ”; an d (3 ) “ th atth e d efen da nt di d s o kno win gl y

an d wi ll fu ll y

with t he in te nteit he r te m po rari ly or pe rm an en tl y

to de pr iv e th e o wne r of

th e u se of the m on ey

or p ro pe rty.” Unit edSta te s v . McR ee, 7 F.3d97 6, 9 80 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). “ [W] he n a n o ut rig htgra ntis pa idov er to th e en d re ci pi en t, u ti li zed , comm in gl edor o th erwi se lo se s i ts id en ti ty, th e m on ey inth e g ran t ce as es to be fed eral .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Sm ith, 5 96 F.2 d 6 62 , 66 4 (5 th Cir . 19 79 ). “ Whi le id en ti fiabl e fu nd s ap pr op ria te d fo r us e in a fed eral pro gr am

are i n t ran si t b etweenth ei r fed eral so ur ce an d t he ir i nt en de d reci pi en t an d a re s ti ll subjec t t o s ub st an ti al fed eral co nt ro ls , th ey rem ai n fe de ral fund s” un de r § 6 41 . Id. We hav e ap pl ie d a“ supe rv is io n a ndco nt ro l” tes t i n

“pr os ecu ti on s [u nd er § 64 1] form is ap pr op ria ti on of f un ds fro m

anin te rm ed ia te en ti ty tha t h as rece iv edgo ve rn m en t m on ie s fo r fu rth er d is bu rs em en t t o e li gi bl e reci pi en ts .” McC ree, 7 F.3dat 9 80 . To s ho w a co ns pi racy un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 71 , “ th e [g ]ove rn m en t m us t p ro ve th e ex is te nc e o f anag reem en t t o a ch ie ve anun lawfu l o bjec ti ve , th e d efen dant ’s kn owi ng an d v ol un tary

parti ci pa ti on inth e co ns pi racy, andth e co m m is si on of a n ov ertactinfurth eran ce o f it .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Cam pa , 52 9 F .3d98 0, 1 00 2 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). “ The go ve rn m en t d oe s n otne edto pro ve th atth e d efen da nt s 12acco m

pl is he d t he pu rp os e o f th e co ns pi racy,” and“ th e [o ve rt] actcanbe in no cen t in na tu re, p ro vi de d i t fu rth ers th e p ur po se of t he co ns pi racy.” Id. “ [T]he Uni te d St at es m us t b e th e ta rg etof aco ns pi racy to d efraudun de r § 3 71 ,” whi chin cl ud es

“ an y co ns pi racy for the pu rp os e o f im pa iri ng , ob st ru ct in g o r de feat in g t he lawf ul func ti on of a ny dep art m en t o f [g ]ove rn m en t.” Un it edSta te s v . Harm as , 97 4 F.2 d 1 26 2, 1 26 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . “ A con sp ira cy m ay be effe ct edwher e a de fen da ntus es a th irdpa rty to r each an d d efraudth e g ov ern m en t,” a nd“ [t]he frau d c anbe acco m

pl is he d b y

de cei t, cr aftor t ric ke ry , or a t l eas t b y m ean s tha t ar e di sh on es t.” Id . (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Neverth el es s, “ th e g ov ern m en t n eedno t al le ge or p ro ve th atth e Uni te d S ta te s o r anag en cy th ereo f was anin te nd edvi ct im of a co ns pi racy to c omm itanoff en se ag ai ns t the Uni te d S ta te s u nd er § 37 1.” Id. at12 68 (qu ot at io n o mit te d) . As t o h er co nv ic ti on for

Co un t 4 , Trenton ly argu es th atth e g ov ern m en t fai le d t o e st ab li sh th athe r fal se cla im s wer e subm it te d t o ade pa rtment o f th e Uni te d S tate s und er § 28 7. Ho wev er, acc or di ng to th e ev id en ce, BHA was a PHA es tabl is he d u nd er Fl or id a la w th atrece iv edfun di ng th ro ug h HUD, a fed eral ag en cy , to bu il d, o pe rat e, an d m ai nt ai n p ub li c h ou si ng . BHA recei ve d fu nd in g fro m HUD thr ou gh anan nu al co nt rib ut io ns co nt ract , wher ei n i t p ro m is edto pr ov id e h ou si ng to lo w in co m e h ou se ho ld s i n e xc ha ng e fo r fed eral fun di ng fro m 13HUD. HU D ens ur edth atth e fu nd in g a ll oc at edto BHA was s pe ntpro pe rly

th ro ug h a n a nn ua l re vi ew of it s an nu al ag en cy

pl an , in cl ud in g i ts pa stan d fu tu re ex pe nd itur es , andanan nu al in de pe nd en t fi na nc ia l au di t. Inth e ev en t o f no nc om pl ianc e wit h the reg ul at io ns , BHA was re qu ire d t o p ro vi de anex pl an at io n an d c orrectth e err or . See 2 4 C .F.R. § 9 03 .23 (st at in g t ha t HUD rev ie ws an nu al ag en cy pl an s t o d et erm in e whe th er, i nt er al ia , th e p lan i s n otpro hi bi te d o r in co ns is te ntwith fe de ral law) . Thi s ev id en ce es tabl is he d t ha t the re was a joi ntfed eral -s ta te pro gr am be twee n B HA, a st at e-cr eat eden ti ty, an d HUD, a fed eral ag en cy , to pro vi de publ ic ho us in g fo r lo w in co m e h ou se ho ld s. Whil e Tren t d idno t d ire ct ly sub m itfal se cl ai m s t o HUD, BHA ev en tu al ly sub m it te d t ho se pa stexpe nd itur es to HUD in i ts an nu al ag en cy

pl anan d the in de pe nd en t fi na nc ia l au di t, wh ic h HUD rev ie wedon anan nu al ba si s t o e ns ur e co m pl ianc e with t he reg ul at io ns . Thu s, the ev id en ce sh owe d t ha t BHA re li edon Tren t's cla im s fo r co nt in ue d fu nd in g fr om HUD pu rs ua ntto a joi ntfed eral -s ta te pro gr am , anda reas on ab le tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e co nc lu de d t ha t the ev id en ce es tabl is he d Tre nt 's g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t un de r § 2 87 . See Be as le y , 55 0 F .2dat 2 73 -7 4. W ith re ga rd s t o h er co nv ic ti onforCo un t 5 , Trentm ai nt ai ns th atth e go ve rn m en t fa il edto sh ow tha t the m on ey or p ro pe rty sto le n b el on ge d t o t he 14Uni te d S tate s und er § 64 1. HUD fund in g i s av ai labl e to BHA pu rs ua ntto it s

an nu al co nt rib ut io ns co nt ractwith HUD. To rec ei ve fun di ng un de r th e co nt ract , BHA was r equi redto pro vi de de cen t, s afe, an d s an it ary ho us in g t o l ow i nc om e ho us eh ol ds , anditwas re qu ire d t o c om pl y with HUD's reg ul at io ns . BHA cou ld on ly use HUD fun di ng foreli gi bl e work i te m s, an d an e m pl oyee co ul d n otus e th e m on ey forpe rs on al ga in . After HUD's rev ie w of B HA's an nu al ag en cy pl an , it co ul d c on du ctciv il au di ts or ava rie ty of ot he r op ti on s i n the ev en t o f th e ap pe aran ce o f im

pr op rie ty or no nc om

pl ianc e wit h t he reg ul at io ns . Bas edon th is ev id en ce, a re as on ab le fact fin de r co ul d c on cl ud e b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t tha t the co nv ert edfun ds were fe de ral an d t ha t HUD m ai nt ai ne d su ffi ci en t s up erv is io n andco nt ro l o ve r BHA. See M cRe e, 7 F .3dat 7 80 ; s ee al so Uni te d S tate s v . Hop e, 90 1 F .2d10 13 , 10 20 -2 1 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 0) (ho ld in g t ha t fund in g o bt ai ne d t hr ou gh HUD thr ou gh it s l oan p ro gr am ret ai ne d i ts fed eral ch arac te r whe re the fun ds co ul d b e ap pl ie d o nl y to wardeli gi bl e p ro gr am

act iv it ie s, co ul d n otbe di ve rte d i nt o i nt eres t b eari ng acco un ts or u se d fo r th e b en efi t o f an ot he r lo anap pl ic an t, an d g ran te es were re qu ire d t o re pay th e fed eral go ve rn m en t fo r m is ap pr op ria te d o r m is ap pl ie d fu nd s) . Furt he r, Tren t's co nv ic ti on un de r § 66 6( a)(1 ) was no t n eces sa ril y in co ns is te ntwith h er co nv ic ti onun de r § 6 41 be cau se th e ev id en ce s ho wedth atBHA ret ai ne d s om e "c are, cu st od y , or c on tro l" 15of

th e fu nd s i n i ts da il y

op erat io ns witho utHUD ov ers ig ht , bu t n ev erthe le ss ha d t o acco un t fo r it s ex pe nd itur es on anan nu al ba si s t o HUD in acco rd an ce wi th fed eral law. Fi na ll y , as t o h er co nv ic ti on un de r Co un t 1 , Trentsubm it s tha t the go ve rn m en t fa il edto sh ow tha t s he co ns pi redto de frau d t he Uni te d S ta te s u nd er § 37 1 b ecau se he r of

fen se s t arg et edBHA rathe r th anHUD, rely in g o n Tan ne r. Howev er, Tren t d idno t ra is e th is sp eci fic arg um en t i n h er m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al as t o C ou nt1; th us , th is Co urt re vi ews for pl ai n e rro r. Hun erl ach , 19 7 F.3 d a t 1 06 8. Ho wev er, Tan ne r sp eci fic al ly hel d t ha t a c on sp ira cy to de frau d t he Uni te d S tate s m ay

be acco m

pl is he d t hr ou gh anin te rm ed iary , su chas B HA. Bec au se Tren t d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atth ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce t o s ho w th atsh e de frau de d t he BHA, th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t err, m uc h l es s p la in ly error , in de nyin g h er m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acqui tt al inth is reg ard . Fi na ll y , Trentarg ue s tha t the di st ric t co urt erredby calcu la ti ng a ba se of fen se lev el un de r U.S.S.G. § 2 C1 .1 i ns te adof U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 . She ass ert s tha t th e ev id en ce d idno t ju st ify app li cat io n o f § 2 C1 .1 b ecau se he r pr im ary cri m in al act iv ity in vo lv eda sc he m e to de frau d B HA invi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 6 66 (a)( 1) , rel y in g o n Un it edSta te s v . Kuku, 1 29 F.3d14 35 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ).

16W e rev ie w “ a d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs forcle ar erro r an d i ts

ap pl ic at io n o f th e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es to th os e fac ts de no vo .” Uni te d S ta te s v . Mo ria rty, 429 F.3d10 12 , 10 21 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). In Ku ku , we hel d t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredby fail in g t o c on si de r th e d efen da nt ’s off en se co nduc t i n c al cu la ti ng hi s s en te nc e und er the Gui de li ne s, s pe ci fic al ly in l ig htof t he in tro du ct ory no te to App en di x A, U.S.S.G. § 2 F1 .1, co m m en t. (n .13 ), an d o urpri orpre ced en t. Kuku, 1 29 F.3dat 1 43 8- 39 & n .7. The di st ric t co urt h adcal cu la te d t he de fen da nt ’s gu id el in e ran ge ba se d o n § 2F 1.1 , whi chha d p ro du cedth e h ig he st of fen se lev el un de r U.S.S.G. § 3 D1.3 (a). Id . at 1 43 8. Be cau se th e d efen da nt ’s of fen se co nduc t was m or e ap pr op ria te ly sen te nc edun de r U.S.S.G. § 2 L2.1 th an un de r § 2 F1 .1, we re ve rs edan d re m an de d fo r res en te nc in g. Id . at 1 43 9- 41 . Howev er, as no te d b y

Uni te d S ta te s v . Poi rie r, 32 1 F .3d10 24 , 10 34 n.8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) , th e in tro du ct ory no te to th e St atut ory

Ind ex was am en de d in 20 00 to “ em

ph as iz e th atth e se nt en ci ng co urt m us t ap pl y th e o ffen se gu id el in e refe ren cedinth e St atut ory Ind ex forth e st atut e o f co nv ic ti on un le ss th e cas e fal ls withi n t he li m it ed‘ st ip ul at io n’ ex cep ti on setforthin§ 1 B1 .2(a ).” Id . The am en de d i ntro du ct ory

no te pro vi de s: “ If m or e th anon e g ui de li ne sec ti onis refe ren cedforth e p art ic ul ar s ta tu te , us e th e g ui de li ne m os t ap pr op ria te forth e of fen se co nduc t ch arg edinth e co un t o f whi chth e d efen da ntwas c on vi ct ed .” 17U.S.S.G. app . A, int ro du ct ory co m m en t (2 00 6) . “ The curren t g ui de li ne s m erg e § 2 F1 .1 wi th § 2 B1 .1” an d i nc lu de a ne w pro vi si on , § 2 B1 .1(c )(3 ), sp eci fy in g t ha t:

“ If [ce rta in co nd it io ns are n otap pl ic ab le an d] th e co nduc t s etforth inth e co un t o f co nv ic ti on est ab li sh es anoff en se sp eci fic al ly cov eredby ano th er g ui de li ne in Ch ap te r Two (o ffen se Co nduc t), [c ou rts sh ou ld ] ap pl y th atot he r gu id el in e.” Po iri er, 3 21 F.3dat 1 03 4 n .8. The di stric t co urt d idno t err in sen te nc in g Tre ntun de r § 2 C1 .1 b ecau se th at gu id el in e sp eci fic al ly cov eredhe r of fen se co nduc t u nd er § 37 1. Up on rev ie w of th e rec or d andco ns id erat io n o f th e p art ie s’ bri efs , we di sc ernno erro r. AFFIRMED.

18