FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 21, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Ho no ra blePa sc o M . B owman II , Unite d St ate s Circuit Judg efo r t

heEi ghth Circuit , * sitti ngby designation. [ P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 13443

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 2 0 3 3 1 - CR- W PD U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s J I L D A R D O M E N D E Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 21, 2008) B efo re W IL S O N , C O X an d B O W M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. * P E R C U R I A M:2

J i l da r do M e nde z appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i ons f orc ons pi r a c y t o de f

r a ud the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 371 ( C ount1) , a nd unl a w f ul pr oduc t i on o f aF lo r id ac o m m e r c ia l d r iv e r ’s lic e n s e ( “C D L ” ) , in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 10 28 (a )( 1), (c )( 3)(A ), and (f) , and 1 8 U . S . C . § 2 (C ou nt2). O n app ea l , M endez a r gue s tha tthe r e c or d doe s notc ont a i n s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

e i the r( 1) the r e q u is ite in te n t to d e f

r a u d th e U n ite d S ta te s u n d e r§ 3 7 1 , o r( 2 ) th e r e q u is ite i nt er st at e c om m er ce nexu s und er§ 1 02 8(a) (1) a nd (c )( 3)(A ). F or the re as on s s et f or th be l ow , w e r e ve r s e the c onvi c t i on of C ount1 a nd a f

f i rm the c onvi c t i on of C ount2. I . B AC KG RO UN D M endez and the go vernm entst i pu l at ed t o the fol l ow i ng fa ct s. O n F ebruary 14, 2007, a n a nony m ous c a l l e rpr ovi de d i nf orm a t i on t o of

f i c e r s of the F l or i da H i gh w ayP atrol re gardi ng fr audu l ent l y obt ai ned C D L s. T he ca l l erexpl ai ned that S t e ve n B a e z , am e m be rof the F l or i daA rm y N a t i ona l G ua r d, w a s s e l l i ng D A - 348E f orm s f orappr oxi m a t e l y $1, 200 t o $2, 000. T he D A - 348E f orm i s aD e pa r tm e ntof A rm y “ O pe r a t orQ ua l i f i c a t i on R e c or d” tha ts e t s f or th the f i tne s s , tr a i ni ng a nd equi pm entqu al i fi ca t i on s of i t s per sonn el w ho have qu al i fi ed t o o pera t e c om m er ci al m o to rv e h ic le s . T h e f

o rm is o n e w a y b y w h ic h a n in d iv id u a l m a y d e m o n s tr a te h is c om pl i a nc e w i th the F l or i daC D L r e qui r e m e nt s a nd the r e by w a i ve the c om pl e t i on3

of the re qu i si t e F l ori da C D L t es t i ng . T he ca l l erfurther e xp l ai ned thatB ae z had be e n pr ovi di ng the s e f

orm s t o non- m i l i t a ry pe r s onne l a nd e s c or t i ng the m t o the H o m est ead , F l o ri d a D ep artm en to f M o t o r V eh i cl es (“ D M V ”) t o o b t ai n C D L s. A l aw enforce m enti nv es t i gat i on concerni ng B ae z r evea l ed that appr oxi m a t e l y 186 D A - 348E f orm s ha d be e n f

r a udul e nt l y s ubm i tt e d a tthe H om es t ea d D M V l i ce nsi ng branch. T he i nv es t i gat i on al so det erm i ned that Me n d e z o b t a i n e d aC l a s s A C DL o n S e p t e m b e r1 4 , 2 0 0 6 u s i n g af r a u d u l e n tDA 348E f orm of the s a m e ty pe a s thos e tha tB a e z s ol d. O f f i c e r s a rr e s t e d M e nde z on A p ri l 9 , 2 0 0 7 , an d M en d ez w ai v ed h i s Mi r anda r ig h ts in w r itin g . D u r in g ap o s t- a rr e s t in te rv ie w , M e n d e z s ta te d th a t h e h a d s p o k e n v ia te le p h o n e to am a n n a m e d S te v e n ab o u t o b ta in in g aC D L b e c a u s e h e th o u g h t h is pr obl e m s r e a di ng a nd w r i t i ng E ngl i s h w oul d pr e ve nthi m f r om othe rw i s e obt a i ni ng a C D L . P ursuantt o B ae z’ s i nstruct i on s, M endez m etB ae z out si de the H om es t ea d D M V on S e pt e m be r14 w i th $1, 000 c a s h. I n e xc ha nge f orthe m one y , B a e z ga ve M e nde z af

orm tha tB a e z ha d f

i l l e d outw i th M e nde z ’ s pe r s ona l i nf orm a t i on, w h ic h M e n d e z h a d c o m m u n ic a te d to B a e z d u r in g th e irp h o n e c o n v e r s a tio n . M endez then u se d the form t o o bt ai n a F l ori da C D L , w hi ch cost s $50 and requi re s f o r f e itu r e o f a ll o th e rd r iv e rlic e n s e s . A l tho ug h M endez re cogn i ze d thatB ae z w as w ea ri ng a U ni t ed S t at es m i l i t ary4

un i form w hen they m et , M endez di d n otkn ow the pu rpose of the D A -348 E form or thati tw as a D epartm entof A rm y f orm . M endez di d k no w , ho w ever , thatan a c qua i nt a nc e ha d i l l e ga l l y obt a i ne d aC D L us i ng am i l i t a ry f orm pur c ha s e d f

r om B a e z . T h e s t i p u l a t i o n f

u r th e rp r o v i d e d th a ti n tr a v e l i n g t o th e Ho m e s t e a d DMV, M e nde z dr ove am ot orve hi c l e , notaC l a s s A ve hi c l e , on publ i c hi ghw a y s a nd r oa ds . M e nde z ne ve rboughtordr ove a ny C l a s s A ve hi c l e . F i na l l y , the s t i pul a t i on decl ar ed thatusi ng a dri ver’ s l i ce nse i nv ol ves operat i ng a m ot or vehi cl e, w hi ch r e qui r e s the pur c ha s e a nd c ons um pt i on of ga s ol i ne tha ttr a ve l s i n i nt e r s t a t e a nd f o r e ig n c o m m e r c e . A f e de r a l gr a nd j ury i ndi c t e d M e nde z , a nd l a t e rs upe r c e de d tha ti ndi c tm e nt c ha r gi ng hi m w i th ( 1) c ons pi r a c y t o de f r a ud the U ni t e d S t a t e s , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 371, a nd ( 2) unl a w f ul pr oduc t i on, a nd a tt e m pt e d unl a w f ul pr oduc t i on, of aF l or i daC D L , i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1028( a ) ( 1) , ( c ) ( 3) ( A ) , a nd ( f ) , a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2. M e nde z pl e d notgui l ty t o both c ount s , a nd l a t e rw a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o a j ury tri al . T he di stri ctcourtdi d n othearany t es t i m on y a nd adop t ed the st i pu l at ed f a c t s a s true , buti tdi d he a ra r gum e ntf r om c ouns e l on the l e ga l i s s ue s . I tf ound M e n d e z g u ilty o f

b o th c o u n ts . I I . STA N D A R D O F R EVI EW5

W e r e v ie w th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e d e n o v o , v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm entand acce pt i ng al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s in f a v o ro f th e v e r d ic t. U

ni te d State s v . Klopf

, 42 3 F . 3d 12 28 , 12 36 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) . W h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t r e lie s o n c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e , r e a s o n ab le in f e r e n c e s , n o t m e r e s p e c u la tio n , m u s t s u p p o r t th e c o n v ic tio n . I d. I I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . In te n t t o D ef

rau d th e U n i te d S tate s M e nde z f

i r s ta r gue s tha tw e m us tr e ve r s e hi s § 371 c onvi c t i on be c a us e the r e c or d doe s nots uppor tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f i ndi ng tha the i nt e nde d t o de f r a ud the U . S . D e pa r tm e ntof

T r a ns por t a t i on ( “ D O T ” ) . H e c onc e de s tha the de f r a ude d the F l or i daD M V , buthe a s s e r t s tha tthe r e i s no e vi de nc e tha the e ve n kne w of a ny c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n aF lo r id aC D L a n d th e f e d e r a l g o v e rn m e n t. U nde r18 U . S . C . § 371, i ti s ac r i m e t o “ c ons pi r e e i the rt o c om m i ta ny offe nse a gai nstthe U ni t ed S t at es , or t o d ef raud the U ni t ed S t at es , or any a gency there of i n any m anner of for any pu rpose . . . . ” T he proo f r equi re d t o sup po rta § 3 7 1 c o n v ic tio n is d if

f e r e n t, h o w e v e r , d e p e n d in g o n w h e th e rth e d e f e n d a n t is c h a r g e d w ith c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it any o f f en se a ga i ns tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s or c ons pi r a c y t o de

f r aud the U ni t e d S t a t e s . I n U ni te d State s v . H

arm as , 974 F . 2d 1262 ( 11th C i r . 1992) , w e e xpl a i ne d tha tunde rthe “ de f r a ud” c l a us e of

§ 371,6

w hi c h i s a ti s s ue he r e , “ the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s w a s the ul t i m a t e t a r ge tof

the c ons pi r a c y , ” w he r e a s unde r§ 371’ s “ a ny of f e ns e ” c l a us e , the g o v e rn m e n t is n o t r e q u ir e d to a lle g e th a t th e U n ite d S ta te s w a s th e in te n d e d v ic tim o f th e c o n s p ir a c y . I

d. at 1 2 6 8 . In so h o ld in g , w e a d h er ed to th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s de c l a r a t i on i n T

an ner v . U

ni ted Stat es , 483 U . S . 107, 107 S . C t . 2739, 97 L . E d. 2d 90 (198 7), that“ [t ] he conspi ra ci es cr i m i nal i ze d b y [ the defraud cl ause of] § 3 71 ar e defi ned . . . m osti m po rt ant l y . . . by the target of the conspi ra cy . ” I

d. a t130, 107 S . C t. a t 2 7 5 2 . Iti s c l ea r thatun der T

an ner , w e m u s t r e v e r s e M e n d e z ’s § 3 7 1 c o n v ic tio n . T he T a n n er d e f

e n d a n ts c o n s p ir e d to d e f r a u d S e m in o le E le c tr ic C o o p e r a tiv e , I n c ., a pr i va t e c om pa ny . I n or de rt o c om pl e t e ac ons truc t i on pr oj e c t , S e m i nol e obt a i ne d a ba nk l oa n tha tw a s gua r a nt e e d by the f e de r a l R ur a l E l e c tr i f

i c a t i on A dm i ni s tr a t i on ( “R E A ” ) . I

d. at11 0, 10 7 S . C t . at27 42 . T he defendant s’ § 3 71 conv i ct i on w as base d o n thei r i nt er fe re nce w i th the R E A ’ s opera t i on of i t s guara nt ee d l oan p r o g r a m . I

d. a t 1 2 8 - 2 9 , 1 0 7 S . C t. a t 2 7 5 2 . T h e d e f e n d a n ts a r g u e d th a t a c ons pi r a c y t o de f

r a ud apr i va t e c orpor a t i on tha tr e c e i ve d f i na nc i a l a s s i s t a nc e f

r om the fe dera l go vernm entdo es no tconst i tut e aconspi ra cyt o d ef raud the U ni t ed S ta te s . I d. a t 1 2 9 , 1 0 7 S . C t. a t 2 7 5 2 . In re spon se , the go vernm entar gu ed thata c on spi ra cyt o d ef raud the U ni t ed7

S ta te s u n d e r§ 3 7 1 m a y b e e f f e c te d b y th e u s e o f

th ir d p a r tie s a n d th a t S e m in o le m a y its e lf

b e tr e a te d a s “th e U n ite d S ta te s ” f o rp u rp o s e s o f

§ 3 7 1 b e c a u s e it r e c e iv e d f

e d e r a l f in a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e a n d s u p e rv is io n . I d. T he T an nerC ou rt re j ec t ed the go vernm ent ’ s a rgum ent , re as on i ng thata c on spi ra cyt o d ef raud a thi rd party i s noti t se l f aconspi ra cyt o d ef raud the U ni t ed S t at es si m pl y bec ause the thi rd p a r ty r e c e iv e s f

in a n c ia l a s s is ta n c e f

r o m a n d is s u p e rv is e d b y th e U n ite d S ta te s . I d. at1 3 0 -3 2 , 1 0 7 S . C t . at2 7 5 2 -5 4 . T h e C o u rtth en h el d th atth e d efen d an t s’ conv i ct i on s c ou l d o nl y s t and i f the evi dence w as suff i ci entt o est abl i sh thatthey c o n s p ir e d to c a u s e S e m in o le to m a k e m is r e p r e s e n ta tio n s to th e R E A . I d. a t132, 1 0 7 S . C t. a t 2 7 5 4 . He r e , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r tf o u n d th a tb y f

r a u d u l e n t l y o b t a i n i n g th e CDL, M e nde z i nt e nde d t o de f r a ud both the S t a t e of

F l or i da , w hi c h i s s ue d the C D L , a nd the D O T , w hi c h pr om ul ga t e d the m i ni m um rul e s a nd r e gul a t i ons f orobt a i ni ng a C D L . T he di stri ctcourtthu s c on cl ud ed that , beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt , M endez h a d th e r e q u is ite in te n t to d e f r a u d th e U n ite d S ta te s u n d e r§ 3 7 1 . W e di sa gree . M endez’ s § 37 1 con vi ct i on i s pre ci se l y w hatthe T an nerC ou rt m ea ntt o p re vent . T he fa ct s t o w hi ch the part i es st i pu l at ed do no tshow that M e nde z e ve n kne w the f e de r a l gove rnm e ntw a s i n i nvol ve d i n the i s s ua nc e of F l or i daC D L s , l e ta l one tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s w a s the ul t i m a t e i nt e nde d t a r ge tofThe g overnment also asserts that Mende z defraude d the United States Army . Mendez 1 correctly rec ognizes, however, that this theory was ne ither in the indictment nor pre sented at trial. Acc ording ly , we may not affir m the conviction on this basis. See U nited States v. Elkins , 885 F.2d 775, 782 ( 11th Cir. 1989) (“This Court ca nnot affir m a criminal conviction based on a theory not contained in the indictment, or not pre sented to the jury .”) ( citation omitted). 8 M endez’ s c on du ct . A cc ordi ng l y, un der T an ner , there w as no basi s f or the di stri ct c our tt o f i nd tha tM e nde z w a s gui l ty be y ond ar e a s onabl e doubtof de f r a udi ng the U n ite d S ta te s u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 . T he gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tM e nde z ’ s pa y m e ntf ora nd us e of

the D A - 348E form t o o bt ai n the C D L w as enou gh t o sat i sf y § 37 1’ s i nt entre qu i re m ent . In 1 s uppor tof

i t s a r gum e nt , the gove rnm e ntpoi nt s t o the f i r s ts e nt e nc e of

the i ntrodu ct i on se ct i on i n the F l ori da C D L hand bo ok , w hi ch desc ri bes the “ fe dera l r e qui r e m e nttha te a c h s t a t e ha ve m i ni m um s t a nda r ds f orthe l i c e ns i ng of c o m m e r c i a l d r i v e r s . ” A d d i t i o n a l l y , th e g o v e rn m e n tc i t e s th e F l o r i d aD MV w eb si t e, w h i ch ad v i ses C D L ap p l i can t s o f fed eral g u i d el i n es. G i v en th o se fact s, the go vernm entcont ends, i ti s r ea sonabl e t o i nferthatM endez knew of the fe dera l in v o lv e m e n t in th e is s u a n c e o f F lo r id aC D L s . T ho se fa ct s, ho w ever , w er e noti ncl ud ed i n the tri al st i pu l at i on , and there fore ar e notpartof the re cord. E ven i f w e w er e t o acc eptsuch fa ct s a s c i rc um st ant i al e vi de nc e , the y w oul d notbe s tr ong e nough t o s uppor tM e nde z ’ s § 371 c onvi c t i on b e c a u s e th e s tip u la tio n in d ic a te s th a t M e n d e z h a d d if f ic u lty r e a d in g E n g lis h .Licciardi’s conviction was affirme d on other grounds. Licciardi , 30 F.3d at 1134-35. 2 9 A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha ti tw oul d be m e r e s pe c ul a t i on, r a the rtha n a re as on abl e i nfer ence , t o con cl ud e thatM endez i nt ended t o d ef raud the D O T base d on the r e f

e r e nc e s t o the f

e de r a l gove rnm e nti n the C D L ha ndbook a nd F l or i da D M V w ebsi t e. T h e N in th C ir c u it f

a c e d s im ila rf

a c ts a n d r e a c h e d as im ila rc o n c lu s io n in U ni te d State s v . L i c c i ar di , 3 0 F .3 d 1 1 2 7 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ) . T h e d e f e n d a n t in L i c c i ar diw as a grape brok erw ho defr auded a w i ne prod ucerand w as char ged un der the defraud cl ause of § 3 71 because of the re gu l at ory i nv ol vem entof a f e de r a l a ge nc y , the B ur e a u of A l c ohol , T oba c c o, a nd F i r e a rm s ( “ A T F ” ) , i n the w in e in d u s try . I

d. a t1128- 29. T he C our the l d tha tthe ba s i s s ugge s t e d i n T an ner f oruphol di ng ade f

e nda nt s ’ § 371 c onvi c t i on w a s l a c ki ng be c a us e the gove rnm e nt f a i l e d t o s h o w a n y th i n g b e y o n d th e d e f e n d a n t s ’ i n c i d e n t a l i mp a i rme n to f ATF fu n ct i o n s. I

d. a t1132. “ I tm i ghtha ve be e n e a s y , ” the C our te xpl a i ne d, “ f orthe 2 gove rnm e ntt o e s t abl i s h tha tL i c c i a r di w a s f a m i l i a rw i th the f

e de r a l r e gul a t i ons on the l abe l l i ng of

w i ne a nd tha ti tw a s ane c e s s a ry pa r tof hi s pl a n of

de c e i ttha t[ the d e f r a u d e d w in e p r o d u c e r ] p r o v id e in f o rm a tio n to th e g o v e rn m e n t th a t w o u ld f ru s tr a te th e s e r e g u la tio n s ,” b u t th e g o v e rn m e n t d id n o t d o s o . I d. T he gove rnm e nt ’ s c a s e i s w e a ke rhe r e tha n i tw a s i n L i c c i ar di . G i ve n theWhen a prior pa nel dec ision conflicts with a subsequent SupremeCourt decision, we 3 must depart from the prior pane l prec edent a nd follow the Supreme Court de cision. Cottrell v. Cal dwe ll , 85 F.3d 1480, 1485 ( 11th Cir.1996). 10 st i pu l at ed fa ct s, i tw ou l d requi re m uch g re at erspec ul at i on for us t o i nferthat M e nde z kne w of

the D O T ’ s i nvol ve m e nti n the i s s ua nc e of F l or i daC D L s tha n the spec ul at i on thatw ou l d h ave been re qu i re d for the N i nth C i rc ui tt o i nferthat L i c c i a r di , hi m s e l f

agr ape br oke r , di d notf or e s e e the e f

f e c tof hi s f r a udul e nt a c tiv ity o n th e A T F . F i na l l y , the gove rnm e nta r gue s tha tknow l e dge tha tthe U ni t e d S t a t e s i s t o be d e f r a u d e d is n o t an e c e s s a ry e le m e n t o f a§ 3 7 1 o f

f e n s e . I n s u p p o r t o f

its arg u m en t , th e g o v ern m en tci t es U ni te d State s v . Sor r ow , 732 F . 2d 176, 177- 79 (11th C i r. 19 84 ), i n w hi ch w e hel d thatthe defraud cl ause of § 3 71 do es no tre qu i re pr oof of a nt i - f e de r a l i nt e nt . T he gove rnm e nta l s o r e l i e d on Sor r ow i n L i c c i ar di , b u t th e N in th C ir c u it c o m m e n te d , “[ i]t is d o u b tf u l th a t Sor r ow su rv i v es T an ner . ” L i c c i ar di , 3 0 F .3 d a t 1 1 3 2 . W e c o n c e d e th a t Sor r ow i s s u p e r c e d e d b y th e Su p r e me C our t ’ s hol di ng i n T

an ner , and w e her eby e xp re ss l y overrul e Sor r ow . 3 B. I nt e r s t a t e C o m m e r c e N e x us M e nde z a l s o a r gue s tha tw e m us tr e ve r s e hi s § 1028( a ) ( 1) c onvi c t i on because hi s c ri m e di d n otsuff i ci ent l y a ff

ec ti nt er st at e c om m er ce . H e c on t ends that if d r iv in g o n p u b lic r o a d s s a tis f ie s th e m in im a l in te r s ta te n e x u s r e q u ir e m e n t, a ll11

lo c a l c r im e s w o u ld b e f e d e r a liz e d . U n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) a n d ( c ) ( 3 ) ( A ) , it is ac r im e to u n la w f u lly p r o d u c e a n id e n tif

ic a tio n d o c u m e n t w h e n th e p r o d u c tio n “is in o ra f f e c ts in te r s ta te or fore i gn com m er ce . ” T o sat i sf y the i nt er st at e c om m er ce re qu i re m ent , ho w ever , th e g o v e rn m e n t n e e d o n ly s h o w am in im a l n e x u s . Klopf , 423 F . 3d a t1239. T he gove rnm e ntm a y pr ove the r e qui s i t e m i ni m a l ne xus by s how i ng e i the rtha tthe d e f e n d a n t’s a c tio n s a c tu a lly a f f e c te d in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , se e 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 (c)(3 )(A ), o r b y sh o w i n g th atth e d efen d an t“ h ad th e i n t en tt o acco m p l i sh act s, w hi ch, i f s ucce ss ful , w ou l d h ave a ff ec t ed i nt er st at e or f

orei gn com m er ce . ” Klopf , 4 2 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 3 9 . T he di s tr i c tc our tf

ound M e nde z gui l ty ba s e d on the c r i m e ’ s a c tua l a f f e c ton in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . W e n e e d n o t d e c id e th a t is s u e , h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e w e h o ld thatthe di stri ctcourtcoul d h ave f ou nd beyond a r ea sonabl e dou btthatM endez i nt ended t o acc om pl i sh ac t s thatw ou l d h ave a ff ec t ed i nt er st at e c om m er ce i f they h a d b e e n s u c c e s s f

u l. S p e c if

ic a lly , th e s tip u la te d f

a c ts s h o w th a t M e n d e z p a id $1 00 0 t o fraud ul ent l y obt ai n the C D L . T hatal on e i s s uffi ci entevi dence that M e n d e z in te n d e d to u s e th e C D L in am a n n e rth a t w o u ld h a v e a f f e c te d in te r s ta te c om m e r c e . M e nde z c l e a r l y i nt e nde d t o ope r a t e ac om m e r c i a l ve hi c l e , a nd op er at i ng a c om m er ci al vehi cl e i l l egal l y, even i f the vehi cl e never l ea ves F l ori da,12

s u f f ic ie n tly a f

f e c ts in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e to s a tis f y th e m in im a l n e x u s r e q u ir e m e n t. A cc ordi ng l y, un der Klopf , w e m us ta f

f i rm M e nde z ’ s c onvi c t i on of C ount2. CONCL US I ON B ecau se th e U n i t ed S t at es w as n o tth e t arg eto f M en d ez’ s cri m e, w e rev erse M e nde z ’ s c onvi c t i on unde r18 U . S . C . § 371. W e a f f i rm M e nde z ’ s c onvi c t i on u n d e r1 8 U .S .C . § 1 0 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) , h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e M e n d e z ’s in te n t in f r a u d u le n tly ob t ai ni ng the C D L w as cl ea rl y t o i l l egal l y opera t e acom m er ci al vehi cl e, w hi ch w o u ld s u f

f ic ie n tly a f

f e c t in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . A FFI R M ED I N PA R T, R EVER SED I N PA R T.