The Honorable Georg e C ara m Steeh, Unit ed S tates Dist rict J udg e for the Easter n District * of Michig an, sitting by

desig nation. -1- NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 09a0743n.06 No. 08-2509 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. TAB I THA NSHOY A MAGOTI , De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED S T ATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : GI L MAN and G RI FF I N, Circuit J udg es; and STEEH, District Judge

. * GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge. Appellant Ta

bitha Nshoy a Mag oti was indicted on April 24, 2008, on one count of making

or u s in g a f

a ls e w r it in g o r d o c u me n t, in v io lati o n o f 1 8 U

. S. C. § 1 0 0 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) , an d o n e c o u nt of willfully making a materia lly false, fictitious or fra udulent statement to the Gover nment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)( 2). The c harg es ar ose fr om Mag oti’s backdating o f an I -9 Employ ment El ig ibi lity

Ve ri fi c a tio n Fo rm

us e d to ve ri fy

he r e lig ibi lity

to w or k in the Un ite d St a te s and

he r f a lse statements made to g overnme nt officials whe n tu rni ng over that form. Duringan August 4, 2008 final pretrial confe renc e, the district cour t determined that if Mag oti testified, her seve n prior fe lony convictions for ut t er i n g and publishing f org ed instruments would be a dmissibl e as impea chmentNo. 08-2509

Un ite d S tat es v . M agoti

-2- e vid e nc e un de r F e d. R. E vid . 6 09 (a )( 2) be c a us e tho se of

fe ns e s r e qu ir ed proo f o f m a kin g fa lse statements. Mag oti did not t estify on her o wn behalf

at trial, she sa

y s, beca use of the judg e’s conclusion that her

prio r co n v i ct ions would be admissible if she did. At the beg inning of trial on Aug ust 12, 2008, the di strict court ruled that four fraudulent I -9 Forms of Magoti' s employ ees that Mag oti submi tted to official s al o n g with her own I -9 F orm wer e admissible to prove Ma g oti’s knowledg e and intent i n d ec i d i n g whether she willfully

backda ted her own For m. Mag oti was convicted by

a jury on both counts on Aug ust 13, 2008. Mag oti appeals h er co n v i ct ions on the g rounds that: (1) ther e wa s insufficient evide nce to sustain her convictions; (2) th e d i s t ri ct cour t abused its discre tion in admitt ing othe r I -9 For ms at tr ial in violation of Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 404(b); and ( 3) the district court abused its discretion under Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 609 by stating that it would admit her prior convictions for uttering and publishing f org ed instruments at trial if she te sti fi e d. F or

the re a so ns se t f

or th b e low , w e a ff

ir m. I . Sufficienc y

of the Evidenc e We r e vie w s uf

fi c ie nc y -o f- the -e vid e nc e c la ims de novo to deter mine “whe ther, a fter vie wing the evidenc e in the l ight most favor able to the pr osecution, any rational trier

of fa ct could have found the essential elements of the crime be y ond a re asonable doubt.” United St ates v. Tocc o , 200 F.3d 4 0 1 , 4 2 4 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g J ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Ma g oti ’s a rgume nt t

hat th e re wa s in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nce t hat sh e wi llf ull y ma de a fa lse state me nt i s w ith ou t me ri t. S pe c ia l A g e nt G e or g e te sti fi e d at tr ia l th a t Ma g oti pr ov ide d A g e nts wi th her I -9 F orm dated J anuar y 1, 2002, told them it had been completed in 2002, and explained to the Ag ents that she di d not reme mber if any one had helped he r complete the I -9 F orm bec ause she hadNo. 08-2509

Un ite d S tat es v . M agoti

-3- filled it out “so l ong ag o.” Geor g e also testified t hat Mag oti later admitted she ha d not cre ated he r I -9 F or m in 20 02 , b ut h a d ac tua lly c re a te d it a ft e r be ing su bp oe na e d in 2007 . V ie wi ngthe Ag e nts ’ te sti m o n y , M a g o t i ’ s I

- 9 F o r m , an d t h e a d d i t i o n a l I

- 9 F o r m s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r

y i n a lig ht m os t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , an y r a t i o n a l t r i e r o f f a c tc o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h a tM a g o t i kn o w i n g l y, willfully , and fa lsely repr esente d in both her I -9 F orm and in her oral stateme nts to the Ag ents that her I -9 F orm was c ompleted on J anuar y 1, 2002. See Tocc o , 20 0 F .3 d a t 42 4; See United States v. Da ug htr y , 48 F.3d 829, 831-32 (4th Cir. 1995), vacate d on other grounds , 51 6 U. S. 9 84 (1 99 5) ); See Six th Circuit Pattern Criminal J ury I nstructions, 2005 Revised Edition, § 13.03. Mag oti’s argument that backdating the F orm is not a materia l misreprese ntation, is without merit. A statement is mater ial if it “has the natural tende ncy to influence or is capa

ble of influenc ing a dec ision” of t he Burea

u of I mmigration of Custom s Enforc ement. Un ite d S tat es v . Lu tz , 154 F.3d 581, 588 (6th Cir. 1998). Viewing the evidence pr esente d to the jury in a light most favor able to the prosec ution, a rational trier of fa ct could have found that Mag oti’s backdating of her I -9 F orm and misrepre sentations to Ag ents that she complete d t h e I -9 Fo rm on J anuar y 1, 2002 had a natural tendenc y to influence I CE’s investigation. See Tocc o , 2 00 F .3 d at 42 4; Lut z , 154 F.3d at 588. Mag oti arg ues that Ag ent Geor g e’s testimony about her oral stateme nts was t o o c o ntr a d ic to ry and insuffic ient to sustain the conviction. Viewingthe test i m o n y i n a li g ht most favorable to the prosec ution, any

rational trier of fac t c ould ha ve believed both the testimony of Ag ent Geor g e and the testimony

of Ag ent B urg ess, who testi fied he could not rec all whether Mag oti told t hem she ha d filled out he r I -9 F orm in 2002. See Tocc o , 200 F .3 d at 424

. Th e Ag e nts ’ c re dib ili ty wa s p ro pe rl y a dec ision for the jury

. See U nited States v. W

right , 16 F.3d 1429, 1440 ( 6th Cir. 1994).No. 08-2509

Un ite d S tat es v . M agoti

-4- Mag oti arg ues that her own I -9 Form was render ed a “leg al nullity ” bec ause she verifie d the form as both employ er and employ ee. She a rg ues, without supporting a uthority , that her c ompletion of the I -9 F orm for he rself c ould not support a finding of criminal liability under 18 U .S.C. § 1001. Th e argume nt i s b a se le ss. Ma g oti wa s convic te d of ma kin g a fa lse wr iti ngand

a fa lse state me nt t o I CE Ag ents. The f

act that Ma g oti was acting as bot h employ er a nd employ ee doe s not nulli fy her duty to truthfully

repr esent he r work status.

I I . Admission of 404(b) Evidenc e Mag oti objects to the admission under Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 404(b) of the four other

I -9 F or ms that sh e c omp le te d for he r em plo y e e s. Ge ne ra lly , e vid e nc e of oth e r c ri me s, wr on g s, or

a c ts

are not admissible to show that a person a cted in conf ormity with those crimes, wrong s, or ac ts when committing a char g ed crime. Such e vidence “may , howeve r, be a dmissibl e for other purpose s, such as proof of motive, oppor

tunity , intent, pr epar ation, plan, knowledg e, identity , or abse nce of mistake

or a c c ide nt. ” F e d. R. E vid . 4 04 (b ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt fo un d th a t the fo ur I -9 F or ms w e re a dmi ssi ble

un de r R ule 40 4( b) to p ro ve Ma g oti ’s kn ow le dg e and in tent wi th r e g ard

to w he the r s he wi llf

ull y ba c kd a te d h e r o wn

I -9 F or m. In r e v i e w i n g R

u l e 4 0 4 ( b ) d e t e r

m i n a t i o n s , t h i s C i r c u i te mp l o ys a thre e-pa rt test, revie wing (1) for clea r er ror the district c ourt’s dete rmination that the ' other act' took pla ce; (2) de novo the district court’s le g al deter mination that the evidenc e wa s admissible for a p ro p er purpose; and ( 3) for abuse of discretion the district court’s de termination that the probative value of the other acts evidenc e is not su bs tanti a lly

ou tw e ig he d b y

its un fa ir ly

pr e jud ic ia l e ff

e c t. Un ite d S tat es v . B e ll , 5 16 F .3 d 4 32 , 4 40 (6t h Ci r. 20 08 ). An e rr or in t he a dmi ssi on

of oth e r- a c ts

ev i d en ce co n s t i tu t es “h ar m l es s erro r” i f t h e o t h er re co rdev i d en ce o f gu i l ti s o v erwh el m i n g,No. 08-2509

Un ite d S tat es v . M agoti

-5- eliminating a

ny fair a ssuranc e that the c onviction was substantially sway ed by t he er

ror. United States v. Murphy , 241 F.3d 447, 453 ( 6th Cir. 2001). F ir st, the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t clear ly err

in f ind ingtha

t th e re wa s su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e to conclude that Mag oti had completed and submitt ed the four I -9 Forms for her employ ees. Ma g oti’s counsel points to differ ence s betwee n the forms a nd argues that M ago t i m ay not have c ompleted them. The one differ ence of signific ance is that Mag oti's name is misspelled on one of the f our I -9 For ms when i t wa s wr i t t en with two “t”s. At trial, Mag oti did not advance a n explanation or

e vid e nc e of

any oth e r pe rs on wh o may have fi lle d o ut t

he I -9 F or ms. I t is un dis pu te d th a t Ma g oti

su bmi tte d the I -9 F or

ms of he r em

plo y e e s to the Ag e nts . T he dis tr ic t c ourt c ou ld f ind on the wh ole

re c or d tha t a re a so na

ble jur y c ou ld c on c lud e Ma g oti c omp le te d o r r a tif ie d th e fo ur

oth e r I -9 F or

ms and submitted them for re view by the Ag ents. Se e Be ll , 516 F.3d at 441. Second, the district cour

t found that the four

employ ee I -9 F orms wer e probative of Mag oti’s knowledg e and intent in dete rmining w hether she wi l l ful ly

backdated her

own I -9 F orm. As an element of

the Fa lse Writing and F alse Statement char g es, the Gove rnment wa s require d to prove be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t th a t Ma g oti “ kn ow ing ly and wi llf ull y ” ma de fa lse state me nts to t he I CE Ag ents. Un ite d Stat es v. W hit e , 49 2 F .3 d 38 0, 39 6 (6 th C ir . 2 00 7) ; United States v. Logan , 250 F.3d 350, 359 (6th Cir. 2001). Mag oti’s defe nse wa s t h at s h e i n n o cently backdated her

I -9 F orm and inn oc e ntl y

re pr e se nte d tha t she ha d in fa c t com ple te d the I -9 F or

m on J anu ary 1, 20 02 . Und e r R ule 404(b), e vidence of other c rimes, wrong s, or ac ts is admiss i b l e t o p ro v e “intent” and “a bsence of mistake.” F ed. R. Evid. 404(b). The district court cor rec tly found that the four

I -9 F orms wer eNo. 08-2509

Un ite d S tat es v . M agoti

-6- proba ti v e o f

th e mate r ia l i s s u e o f

in te n t; th a t i s , w h e th e r

M a g o ti “ kn o w in g ly

an d w il lf u ll y , ” or innocently , made the f

alse wr iting and f

alse stateme nt. Se e Be ll , 516 F.3d at 441. Third, the district court did not abuse its discre tion in finding that the probative value of the four e mploy ee I -9 Fo rm s o u tweig hed the r isk of unfair pr ejudice. Se e Be ll , 516 F.3d at 440. Alternatively , any

err or was h ar m l ess consider ing the other ove rwhe lming re cord e vidence of Mag oti’s guilt. See M

urphy , 241 F.3d at 453. Ag ents testified that Mag oti admitted completing he r I -9 F orm in 2007 afte r she had pr eviously repr esente d that the I -9 F orm was c ompleted it in 2002. The for m was admittedly

backdated to J anuar

y 1, 2002. I I I . Admissibil ity

of Prior Convictions Fe dera l Rule of Evidence 609(a) (2) state s that evidenc e “that any witness has bee n convicted of a c rime shall be a dmitted, reg ardle ss of the punishm en t , if it readily can be deter

mined that

e sta bli sh ingthe e le me nts of the c ri me re qu ir e d pro of or a dmi ssi on

of an a c t of dis ho ne sty

or fa lse state me nt b y

the wi tne ss. ” As wi th any oth e r w itn e ss, de fe nd ants in a c ri min a l tr ia l are su

bje c t to impeachme nt if they

take the sta

nd in their own def

ense. United States v. W

alker , 313 F.2d 236, 238 (6th Cir. 1 9 6 3 )

. A tr ia l c o u rt’ s d e c is io n w h e th e r to a d mi t e v id e n c e o f p r io r c o n v ic ti o n s under Fe d era l Rule of Evidence 609 is reviewe d for a n abuse of

discretion. United States v. GaitanAce vedo , 148 F.3d 577, 591 ( 6th Cir. 1998). The district cour

t did not abuse its discretion in concluding t h at M ag oti’s prior Michig an convictions for utter ing a

nd publishing we re a dmissibl e under Rule 609. Mag oti was convicted of seven violations of M.C.L . § 750.249. The statute pr ohibits “utter [i ng ] and publish[ ing] as true, a false, f org ed, alter ed, or c o u nterfe it recor d, deed, instrument or other wr iting listed in section 248No. 08-2509

Un ite d S tat es v . M agoti

-7- knowing it to be false, a ltered, f org ed, or c ounterfe it, with int ent to injure of defr aud.” This Court ha s p re vio us ly

he ld t hat a convic tio n f

or utt e ri ngand

pu bli sh inga lte re d mo ne y

or de rs is a

c ri me “involving dishone sty .” United States v. Cox , 159 F. App’ x 654, 6 5 7 (6 t h Cir. 2005). Fur ther, a conviction under

M.C.L . § 750.249 for ut t er i n g an d publishing re quires proof that the per son knowing ly

uttered a nd published a “f

alse” writing r e p r e senting it to be “true.” Acc ording ly , Mag oti’s

c on vic tio ns re qu ir e d p ro of of “ an a c t of

dis ho ne sty

or fal se stat e me nt” a s c on te mpl a te d b y Rul e 609(a) (2). The district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Mag oti’s prior uttering and publishing convic tions were a dmissibl e under Rule 6 0 9 (a) (2). See G aitan-Acev edo , 148 F.3d at 591. I V. For these re asons, we a ffirm the judg ment of the district cour t.