2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-11-2005 

# U SA v . E vans P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 03-2772

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . E van s " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1382. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1382NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 03- 2772 UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. D A RR Y L EV A N S, A ppel l ant

__________ APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . N o. 02- cr - 00166- 02) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e J ames T. G i l es

___________ A R G U E D D E C E M B E R 13, 2004 B E F O R E : N Y G A A R D , R O S E N N , and B E C K E R , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed A pr i l 11, 2005)

___________ G eor ge H . N ew m an, E s q. ( A r gued) N ew m an & M cG l aughl i n 834 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 206 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107

C ouns el forA ppel l ant Sar ah L. G r i eb, E s q. ( A r gued) D eni s e S. W ol f, E s q. O f f i c e o f U n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e y 6 1 5 C h e stn u t S tre e t2

Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106

C ouns el forA ppel l ee

___________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. A p p e llan t D a rry l E v a n s w a s c o n v icte d a f ter a ju rytrial o f

th re e c o u n ts o f

m a il fr aud and one countof w i r e fr aud. H e w as s ent ence d t o a t erm of s i x m onths i m pri sonm ent, t hree y ears of sup ervi sed rel ease w i t h the fi rs tsi x m on ths un der hou se a rre st, a $ 3 0 0 f

in e , a $ 4 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t, an d $ 8 ,8 7 9 .9 9 in re stitu tio n . O n a p p e a l, E vans chal l enges t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence , and hi s s ent ence pur s uantt o U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 5 4 3 U .S . ___ , 1 2 5 S .C t. 73 8 (2 0 0 5 ). W e w ill a f f irm in p a rt a n d v a c a te a n d re m a n d in p a rt. I. E vans , a form erl i eut enantand the comm andi ng offi cerof the M ount ed U ni tof the P h ila d e lp h ia P o lic e D e p a rt m e n t, w a s in v o lv e d in a s c h e m e to d e f ra u d th e D e p a rt m e n t. B eca us e of the s peci al needs of the M ount ed U ni t , i tw as al l ow ed t o contr actw i t h an o u tsi d e v en d o r t o p u rch ase h o rsesh o e a n d stab le su p p li es. In c o o p era ti o n w ith a su p p li er, sev era l of

fice rs i n the M o u n ted U n itw o u ld o rde r i tem s n o t perm itted b ythe C ity ’s c o n t r a c t , k n o wi n g t h a tt h e s u p p l i e rwo u l d th e n f a l s e l yb i l l th e c i t yf

o rp e r mi s s i b l e i t e ms a n d a d d a p r o f

i tf o rh i ms e l f. Th e s u p p l i e rc r e a t e d a n i n v o i c e wi t h th e a c tu a l i t e ms3

o r d e r e d a n d a f

a l s e i n v o i c e , a n d t h e n s u b mi t t e d th e f a l s e i n v o i c e t o th e c i t y . Th e i t e ms l i s t ed on the fa l s e i nvoi ces w er e neve rs uppl i ed. A s comm andi ng offi cer , E vans w as r es pons i bl e forens ur i ng thatthe U ni tr ece i ved t he it em s l i st ed o n the i nv oices . T he G ov ernm ent al l eged attri al that Ev ans had , att i m es, dir ect l yveri fi ed thati t em s had b een recei ved w hen theyhad no t . T he G ov ernm ent al so claim ed that E v an s an d o ther o ff icers co n ce aled fro m the c itythe item s tha t w ere i mp r o p e r l yo b t a i n e d . A c o o p e r a t i n g wi t n e s s t e s t i f i e d th a twh e n Ev a n s b e c a me comm andi ng offi cer , he w as t ol d aboutthe s cheme and gi ven a c hoi ce a s t o w hetherhe w ant ed t o cont i nue w i t h t he s cheme bys i gni ng the fa l s e i nvoi ces . A ccor di ng t o t he t es t i m ony , E vans know i ngl ys i gned the fa l s e i nvoi ces . A ddi t i onal l y , m ul t i pl e w i t nes s es at t r i al t es t i fi ed thatt heyor der ed “of f- contr act ” i t ems atE vans ’ di r ect i on. E vans t es t i fi ed i n hi s ow n defe ns e. H e admi t t ed thathe or der ed s ever al offc o n tra c t it e m s th ro u g h th e sta b le s u p p lies c o n tra c t. F u rth e rm o re , h e a d m itt e d th a t h e d id notfol l ow pr operpol i ce pr ocedur e w hen he f ai l ed t o as s i gn pr oper t ynum ber s and i nv entoryvari ou s off-contr acti t em s. N on et heles s, he d enied anykn ow l edg e of f al se in v o ice s o r a n yc rim in a l in ten t. II. I n r evi ew i ng a cl ai m fori ns uffi ci entevi dence , w e vi ew the evi dence i n t he l i ght m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e G o v e rn m e n t. U nited S tates v. Sh am bry , 3 9 2 F . 3 d 6 3 1 , 6 3 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). E v a n s’ c o n v ictio n m u st b e a f f irm e d if a re a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld h a v e f o u n d h im4

g u ilty b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t a n d th e v e rd ic t is s u p p o rt e d b ys u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . I d. W e w ill o v e rt u rn a v e rd ic t o n ly w h e re th e f a ilu re o f th e p ro s e c u tio n is c le a r. U ni t ed Stat es v. H

ayw ood , 363 F. 3d 200, 204 n. 3 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . E vans ar gues thatbeca us e the j ur yacqui t t ed hi m of s om e cha r ges , theym us thave f ound t hathe di d notauthor i ze the pu rchase of fals el y“i nv oiced” i t em s. G i ven the t es t i m onybycooper at i ng w i t nes s es , the document aryevi dence re g a rd in g th e o f

f -c o n tra c t p u rc h a sin g sc h e m e , an d E v a n s’ te stim o n ya t trial, a r e a so n a b le ju ryc o u ld h a v e f

o u n d E v a n s g u iltyb e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. E v a n s h a s f a iled to over come t he hea vybur den pl ace d on a def endantchal l engi ng the s uffi ci encyof the e v id e n c e . See i d. III . E vans al s o r ai s es s ever al chal l enges t o hi s s ent ence . H avi ng det erm i ned under U ni t ed Stat es v. B ooker , 543 U . S. __, 125 S. C t . 738 ( 2005) , thatthe s ent enci ng i s s ues E vans r ai s es ar e bes tdet erm i ned bythe D i s t r i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance , w e vac at e the s ent ence and r emand forr es ent enci ng i n acc or dance w i t h B ooker .