The Hon orable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for th e 1 District of South Dakota.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-4375

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Syed Y. Huq, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 1998 Filed: August 14, 1998

___________ Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Afte r a jury found Syed Y. Huq guilty of embezzlement and theft of trave l monies exceeding $1,000 of an Indian Tribal Organization, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163, the district court senten ced him to two years probation and imposed a $4,000 1 fine. Huq appeals his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the $1,000 statutory threshold to support a felony conv iction. He thus requests that the case be remanded for entry of a misdemeanor conviction. We affirm.-2-

We will reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence only when we conclude that no reasonable juror could find guilt bey ond a reasonable doubt, and we review the evidenc e in the light most favorable to the government and accept all reasonabl e inferences supporting the verdic t. See United States v. Behr , 33 F.3d 1033, 1035 (8th Cir. 1994). Section 1163 makes it a criminal offense for any person to embezzle, steal, knowingly convert to his use, or willfully misapply any monies belonging to an Indian tribal organization; a person who commits such an offense may be imprisoned no more than five years and/or fined, “but if the value of su ch property does not exceed the sum of $1,000,” the person may be fined and/or imprisoned no more than one year. Thus,
aperson embezzling less than $1,000 is guilty of a misdemeanor, see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(6) (offense with maximum term of imprisonment of one year or less but more than s ix months is Class A misdemeanor), whereas one who embezzles more tha n $1,00 0 is guilty of a felony, see 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4) (offense with maximum term of imprisonment of less than ten years but five or more years is Class D felony). For purpo ses of the words “knowingly convert” in section 1163, the “knowing an d unauthorizedexercise of dominion over another & s property, though possession i s wrongful in the inception, is no less a conversion t han is the knowing and unauthorized
exe rcise of dominion over another & s property after possession is lawfully obtained. ” See United States v. Wilkinson , 124 F.3d 971, 976-77 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied , 118 S. Ct. 1089 (1998).

We conclude that th e evidence was sufficient to support Huq & s conviction for a felony, because it allo wed the jury to find the following. Huq received from the tribal organ izationin question approximately $3,400 as travel advances to attend tw o conferences in Flagstaff, Arizona, in 1996, and one conference in Warrenton, Virginia, also in 1 996. Huq prepared travel expense forms following each trip, purporting t o su bstantiate his claim to these funds. Along with the travel expense forms, h e submitted false hotel receipts which concealed the fact that the conference sponsor s had paid for his lodgin g. In addition, the Flagstaff conference & s sponsor paid Huq per diem and other related expenses, as well as his airfare for b oth trips, for which the tribe-3-

had also advanced Huq monies. Further, Huq was paid an honorarium for lecturin g during the first Flagstaff trip, which he did not remit to the tribe as required.
Huq contends here, as he did below, that he acted in good faith as to the tw o Flagstaff trips, because in a 1993 letter the tribe & s former president indicated that, as to a F lagstaff workshop to which Huq had been invited, Huq could retain expense s reimb ursedto him by the conference sponsor as well as by the tribe. The jury , however , was instructed that the government had to prove Huq acted knowingly, and we believe the government satisfied this burden. The jury cou ld have reasonably found Huq acted knowingly based on evidence that he falsified receipts for al l three trips, thus acting no differently fol lowing the two Flagstaff trips--as to which he contends he had permission to retain the sponsoring institute & s reimbursements--than he did following the Warre nton trip. The jury also heard evidence that Huq never brought the 199 3 letter to the tribal finance office & s attention in claiming his expenses, or to a n investigating federal agent & s attention; that the 1993 letter was for one 1993 workshop; and that Huq would not have been able to keep the travel advances if the exhibits had not been falsified.
Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.