# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 35 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Pi erre W at so n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t
fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Decem

be r 10 , 20 18

Fi le d: Feb ru ary 5, 2 01 9 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Pi erre W at so n was in cu st od y an d awai ti ng tri al on se pa rat e fed eral c h a r g e s

whe n he co ns pi r e d t o c o m m it ba nk frau d wit h Taio n Bro wn an d Ju st ic e Cart er,

ne it he r of who m was in carc e r a t e d

. Bec au se W at so n di sc us se d th e sc he m es wit h 1

See Un it ed Sta te s v . W at so n, 8 83 F.3d 10 33 (8t h C ir. 2 01 8)

. 1Bro wn vi a m on it or ed te le ph on e cal ls an d le tt ers , as well as du rin g ja i l vi si ts

, th e

co ns pi racy was so on di sc ov ered an d th e th r e e w e r e ch arg ed wit h fed eral of fen se s.

Fo ll owi ng a be nc h tri al

, th e di s t r i c t co ur t fo un d W at so n gu il ty of co ns pi racy to 2

co m m it ba nk frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 13 49 an d 1 3 4 4 ( c o u n t 1) an d th ree

co u n t s o f b a n k frau d in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 44 (co un ts 2- 4)

. W at so n was

se nt e n c e d to 48 m on th s’ i m pr is on m en t. He ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e ev id en ce was

in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a fin di ng of gu il t an d th at th e di st ric t co u r t a b u se d it s

di sc ret io n whe n it va rie d up ward fro m th e U.S. Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es )

ran ge . W e aff

irm.

W e rev ie w de no vo th e su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, “ vi ewin g evi de nc e in th e

li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e go ve rn m en t, res ol vi ng co nf li ct s in th e go ve rn m en t’s fav or

an d acce pt in g al l r e a s o n ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es v.

Grim es , 82 5 F .3d 89 9, 9 02 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6)

. “ In pa ss in g u po n t he su ffi ci en cy of t he

ev id en ce to su st ai n an ul ti m at e fin di ng of gu il t fo ll owi ng a be nc h tri al

, we ap pl y th e

sa m e st an da rd of rev ie w th at is ap pl ie d wh ere a de fen da nt ha s bee n fou nd gu il ty by

a jury; th at is to sa y , th e fin di ng m us t be s u st ai ne d if it is su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce.” Un it ed Sta te s v . Pet ers on , 63 2 F .3d 10 38 , 10 41 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1)

.

To es ta bl is h ba nk frau d, th e Uni t e d S t a te s was req ui red to pr ov e be y on d a

reas on ab le do ub t th at (1 ) W at so n kn owi ng ly ex ecu te d, or at te m pt ed to e x e c u t e , a

sc he m e to ob ta in an y of th e m on ey s an d fu nd s un de r t h e cu st od y of a fin an ci al

in st it ut io n by m ean s of m at eri al fal se or frau du le nt pr et en se s or repre se nt at io ns ; (2)

W at so n di d so wit h th e in te nt to de frau d; an d (3 ) th e fin an ci al in st it ut io n was in su red

The Hon or ab le J oh n A. Ro ss , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 2

Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-by th e Fed eral Dep os it In su ran ce Co rp or at io n (FDIC )

. See 18 U.S.C. § 13 44 ; se e 3

al so Uni te d S ta te s v . Lewis , 26 0 F .3d 85 5, 8 55 (8t h C ir. 2 00 1)

.

W at so n arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on on

co un t 2, whi ch was ba se d on a ch eck -k it in g sc he m e. To pr ov e th at W at so n en ga ge d

in th e sc he m e, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d Bro wn’s te st im on y , as well as ba nk reco rd s,

a le tt er fro m W at so n to Bro wn, reco rd in gs of cal ls be twee n W at so n an d Bro wn, an d

do cu m en ts th at Bro wn br ou gh t to he r vi si ts wit h W at so n. The ev id en ce sh owe d th at

Bro wn, at W at so n’s be he st

, o p e n e d ch eck in g acco un ts at two ba nk s an d de po si te d

$2 5 in to each acco un t. Bro wn te st ifi ed th at sh e th en de po si te d a $2 00 ch eck fro m he r

fir st acco un t in to he r se co nd acco un t, no twi th st an di ng he r an d W at so n’s kn owl ed ge

th at th e fir st acco un t ha d in su ffi ci en t fu nd s to ho no r th e ch eck

. Bro wn th en wit hd rew
$2 00 in cas h fro m th e se co nd acco un t, pu rch as ed a $2 00 m on ey o r d e r wit h th e

wit hd rawn fu nd s, and de po si te d th e m on ey or de r in to he r fir st acco un t. Su bs ta nt ia l

ev id en ce th us s u p p o r t s t he di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng of gu il t on co un t 2. See Uni te d

S t a t e s v. W hi te he ad

, 17 6 F.3 d 10 30

, 10 34

, 10 41 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) (co nc lu di ng t h a t

th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to pr ov e a sc he m e ex i s t e d w h e rei n th e de fen da nt

de po si te d in s u f

f i c i e n t fu nd s ch eck s in to m ul ti pl e acco un ts to in fla te th e acco un t

ba la nc es ); se e al so Uni te d S t a t e s v. Bl um ey er, 11 4 F.3 d 75 8, 76 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )
(co nc lu di ng th at “ th e go ve rn m en t ne ed no t p r o v e in te nt di rect ly” an d th at th e fact

fin de r “ m ay

in fer i nt en t t o d efra ud fro m cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce”)

.

W at so n al so co nt es ts hi s co nv ic ti on on co un t 3, an ot he r ch eck -k it in g sc he m e.

The go ve rn m en t pres en te d si m il ar evi de nc e to pro ve th at W at so n i ns tru ct ed Bro wn

to recr ui t ot he rs to en ga ge in ch eck -k it in g an d th at Bro wn su cces sf ul ly recr ui te d he r

co us in

, Ju st ic e Cart er. Cart er, acco m pa ni ed by Bro wn, op en ed ch eck in g acco un ts at

It is un di sp ut ed th at th e ba nk s refe rred to in th is cas e are FDIC-i ns ur ed 3

in st it ut io ns

.

-3

-two ba nk s. The t wo th en de po si te d a st art er ch eck fo r $1 ,00 0 fro m Cart er’s fir st

acco un t in to Bro wn’s ba nk acco un t, bo th kn owi ng Cart er’s acco un t ba la nc e was on ly

$5 0. Bro wn pro ceed ed to im m ed ia te ly wit hd raw a po rti on of t he il le gi ti m at e fu nd s

fro m he r acco un t. Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce th us li ke wis e su pp or ts th e co nv i c t i o n o n

co un t 3

.

W at so n arg ue s th at t h e e v i d e n ce do es no t su pp or t hi s co nv ic ti on on co un t 4,

whi ch was ba se d on Bro wn’s act of de po si t i n g a ch eck fro m Dy Ant ho ny Owens ’s

cl os ed ba nk acco un t i nt o h er ac co un t. To pro ve co un t 4, th e go ve rn m en t p res en te d

th e te st im on y of Owens an d Bro wn, as well as ba nk reco rd s an d reco rd in gs of ph on e

cal ls

. The ev id en ce sh owe d th at W at so n in st ru ct ed Bro wn to co nt act an d ob ta in

ch eck s fro m a m an na m ed Lum py. B r o w n f

o ll owe d W at so n’s in st ru ct io ns an d

rece iv ed fro m Lum

py ch eck s be ari ng Owens ’s na m e. Owens te st ifi ed th at hi s wall et

, in cl ud in g hi s de bi t card an d PIN, ha d be en st ol en , th at th e si gn at ur e on th e ch eck was

no t hi s, an d th at he di d no t kn ow W at so n or Bro wn. Thi s ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h t ha t a s ch em e ex is te d a nd th at W at so n i nt en de d t o c om m it ba nk frau d.

Fi na ll y , W at so n co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce was in s u f f i ci en t to su pp or t a

fin di ng of gu il t on th e co ns pi racy ch arg e. To pr ov e co ns pi racy to co m m it ba nk frau d,

th e go v e r n men t was req ui red to es ta bl is h th at an ag reem en t to ach ie ve ba nk frau d

ex is te d, th at W at so n kn ew of th e ag reem en t, an d th at W at so n kn owi ng ly be cam e pa rt

of th e ag reem en t with at le as t on e ot he r pe rs on

. See Uni te d St at es v. Ade jum o, 77 2

F.3 d 51 3, 52 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Kru g, 82 2 F.3 d 99 4, 99 9 (8 th

Ci r. 20 16 ). W at so n cl ai m s th at th e e v i de nc e fai ls to sh ow th at he en ga ge d in a

co ns pi racy to co m

m it ba nk frau d, bu t rat he r sh ows on ly th at he ha d m erel y pr ov id ed

b a d ad vi ce to Bro wn an d di sc us se d sc he m es th at ne ve r cam e to fru it io n. A s n o t e d

ab ov e, ho wev er, th e go ve rn m en t su ffi ci en tl y es ta bl is he d th at W at so n ha d kn owi ng ly

en te red in to an ag reem en t t o e ng ag e in a ch eck -k it in g s ch em e. See Kru g, 82 2 F .3d

at 99 9 (co nc lu di ng th at a de fen da nt ’s in vo lv em en t in a co ns pi racy m ay be pr ov ed by

-4

-ci rcu m st an ti al e v i d e nc e). The ev id en ce was th us su ffi ci en t to su pp or t W at so n’s

co ns pi racy con vi ct io n.

W at so n ne xt arg ue s th at t he di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in va ry in g

up ward fro m th e Gui de li ne s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng ran g e o f 2 1 to 27 m on th s’

im pr i s o n men t. Abs en t a ch al le ng e to pr oc ed ur al erro r, we rev ie w th e su bs ta nt iv e

reas on ab le ne ss of a se nt en ce fo r ab us e of d i s c r e t i o n. Uni te d St at es v. St on er, 79 5

F.3 d 88 3, 88 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ). W he n co ns id eri ng a di st ric t co ur t’s ab ov e-Gu id el in es

ran ge va ria n c e , we “ gi ve du e de fere nc e to th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on th at th e [1 8

U.S.C.] § 35 53 (a) fact or s, on a who le

, jus ti fy th e ex te nt of th e va ria nc e.” Id

. at 88 5
(q uo ti ng Gall v. Un it ed Sta te s, 5 52 U.S. 38 , 51 (2 00 7) ).

W at so n’s so le arg um en t is th at hi s 48 -m on th se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti ve ly

un reas on ab le be cau se th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s ci te d by th e di st ric t co ur t in su pp or t of th e

up ward va ria nc e were al read y c on si de red in cal cu la ti ng th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. W e

ha ve he ld th at “ fact or s th at ha ve al read y be en ta ke n in to acco un t in cal cu la ti ng th e

ad vi so ry Gui de li ne s ran ge can ne v e r t h el es s fo rm th e ba si s of a va ria nc e.” Id

. (q uo ti ng U ni te d St at es v. Dav id

, 68 2 F.3 d 10 74

, 10 77 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )). W he n a

de fen da nt ’s “ cri m in al hi st or y is a fact or al read y co ns id ered in th e co m pu ta ti on of th e

Gui de li ne s ran ge [, it ] do es no t ren de r th e di st ric t co ur t’s c o ns id erat io n of it un de r § 35 53 (a) erro ne ou s.” Uni te d St at es v. W at ers , 88 3 F.3 d 10 22

, 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 )
(p er cu ria m ). Here, th e di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered th at W at so n was in carc erat ed at th e

ti m e of hi s of

fen se , th at he ha d a lo ng cri m in al hi st or y , th at he or ga ni zed an d le d th e

co ns pi racy, an d th at hi s pr ev io us se nt en ces ha d no t de te rred hi m

. The di st ric t co ur t

di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in de te rm in in g th at th e fact s jus ti fie d an up ward va ria nc e,

as it was pe rm it te d to do so whe n th e Gui de li ne s di d “n o t accu rat el y refl ect
[Watso n’s] hi st or y

an d c on du ct .” Sto ne r, 79 5 F .3d at 8 85

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-5

-