Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/827/995/3010/
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 13:55:05
Document Index: 415841138

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 1341', '§ 371', '§ 1341', '§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 371']

United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Billy L. Massey and Larry P. Wages, Defendants-appellants, 827 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1987) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fifth Circuit › 1987 › United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Billy L. Massey and Larry P. Wages, Defendants-appe...
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Billy L. Massey and Larry P. Wages, Defendants-appellants, 827 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1987)
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - 827 F.2d 995 (5th Cir. 1987) Sept. 3, 1987
Appellants Billy Massey and Larry Wages appeal their convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and for committing mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Having reviewed the record, we find that it was reasonably foreseeable that the mails would be used in furtherance of appellants' scheme to defraud, but that the government never demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the mails were, in fact, used. Therefore, we affirm appellants' convictions for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and we reverse their convictions for committing mail fraud.
On October 2, 1985, Massey and Wages were indicted and charged with conspiring to commit mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1), and with committing mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Count 2). On October 17, 1985, Massey moved to sever the trial of his case from that of Wages. The district court denied the motion.
Appellants claim that their convictions for committing mail fraud must be reversed because the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove that anything was mailed by or on behalf of any of the conspirators. The crime of mail fraud has three elements, each of which the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that the defendant participated in some scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) that the defendant or someone associated with the scheme or artifice either used the mails or caused the mails to be used; and (3) that the use of the mails was for the purpose of executing the scheme. Armco Industrial Credit Corp. v. SLT Warehouse Co., 782 F.2d 475, 481-82 (5th Cir. 1986). The record demonstrates that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the second of the three elements.
There is no direct evidence of mailing by appellants or their co-conspirators. Rather, the government's proof consists entirely of circumstantial evidence concerning the "usual" office procedure. Proof of mailing can be established by circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Bowman, 783 F.2d 1192, 1197 (5th Cir. 1986); United States v. Ledesma, 632 F.2d 670, 675 (7th Cir.) (" [T]estimony as to office practice is sufficient proof of mailing."), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 998, 101 S. Ct. 539, 66 L. Ed. 2d 296 (1980). But the use of circumstantial evidence does not relieve the government of its burden of establishing use of the mails "beyond a mere likelihood or probability," United States v. Srulowitz, 785 F.2d 382, 387 (2nd Cir. 1986), or by more than mere speculation. United States v. Scott, 730 F.2d 143, 147 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1075, 105 S. Ct. 572, 83 L. Ed. 2d 512 (1984). Circumstantial evidence "such as testimony regarding office practice" is sufficient only "so long as the circumstances proven directly support the inference and exclude all reasonable doubt to the extent of overcoming the presumption of innocence." United States v. Brooks, 748 F.2d 1199, 1203 (7th Cir. 1984).
"In reviewing the sufficiency of a trial court's jury instructions, an appellate court 'must examine the adequacy of the charges as a whole in the context of the entire trial to determine whether they adequately presented the issues to the jury.' " United States v. Stanley, 765 F.2d 1224, 1237 (5th Cir. 1985), citing United States v. Graves, 669 F.2d 964, 970 (5th Cir. 1982).
Appellants claim that the district court erred in failing to require proof of actual use of the mails in its charge because such proof is a requirement for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 371, and because such proof is a requirement for conviction under the particular indictment returned against these appellants.
Regarding the first claim, this Court has held that " [c]onviction of conspiracy to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371 requires an agreement by two or more persons to work together for an illegal purpose plus the commission of an overt act by any one of them in furtherance of the agreement." United States v. Becker, 569 F.2d 951, 959 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 865, 99 S. Ct. 188, 58 L. Ed. 2d 174 (1978). Under this definition, it is not necessary that any one particular overt act be proven, including actual use of the mails. See United States v. Reynolds, 762 F.2d 489, 494 (6th Cir. 1985) ("Mailing is an element of the crime of mail fraud but not an element of the crime of conspiracy."); United States v. Donahue, 539 F.2d 1131, 1136 (8th Cir. 1976) (" [W]e do not think that it was necessary to show as an overt act ... an actual use of ... the mails ...").
Moreover, reversal of appellants' convictions for committing the substantive crime of mail fraud does not require a reversal of their convictions for conspiring to commit mail fraud. Conspiracy to commit an offense and the commission of that offense are separate and distinct crimes. Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777, 95 S. Ct. 1284, 1288, 43 L. Ed. 2d 616, 622 (1975); United States v. Garza, 754 F.2d 1202 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. Todd, 735 F.2d 146, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1984) ("Under the conspiracy charge the government is only required to prove that at least one overt act was taken by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; it need not prove that the substantive offense was consummated."), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1189, 105 S. Ct. 957, 83 L. Ed. 2d 964 (1985). We reject appellants' first claim regarding the district court's charge to the jury.
Appellants' second claim regarding the court's charge is that proof of use of the mails was necessary for conviction on Count 1 because of the particular indictment brought against them. Appellants urge that the district court effectively amended the indictment when it did not require proof of all the elements of the conspiracy as they were spelled out in the indictment. In other words, once the government declared that "caus [ing] to be delivered by mail certain paperwork" was part of the conspiracy itself, as well as being an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the government was bound to prove that element of the crime, regardless of whether it could have made out a successful charge under Sec. 371 without including that element. The answer to this contention is that Count 1 of the indictment only alleges an agreement to cause the mails to be used. Count 1 does not charge the commission of the acts themselves, except in the listing of the overt acts, and it has been demonstrated that not all of those need to be proven. We find no reversible error in the district court's jury instructions.
Appellants assert that the evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that they intended or otherwise contemplated the use of the United States mails in furtherance of their scheme to defraud. Contemplation of the use of the mails is one of the three elements of the crime of mail fraud conspiracy: (1) an agreement between appellants and others (2) to commit the crime of mail fraud, and (3) an overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of that agreement. See United States v. Ortiz-Loya, 777 F.2d 973, 981 (5th Cir. 1985). We review the record to determine whether the government proved the second element beyond a reasonable doubt.
" [C]onspiracy to commit a particular substantive offense cannot exist without at least the degree of criminal intent necessary for the substantive offense itself." Ingram v. United States, 360 U.S. 672, 678, 79 S. Ct. 1314, 1319, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1503 (1959). See also United States v. Harrelson, 754 F.2d 1153, 1174 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 908, 106 S. Ct. 277, 88 L. Ed. 2d 241 (1985); United States v. Beil, 577 F.2d 1313 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 946, 99 S. Ct. 1422, 59 L. Ed. 2d 634 (1979). There is no specific intent requirement regarding use of the mails in a substantive mail fraud case. "The test to determine whether a defendant caused the mails to be used is whether the use was reasonably foreseeable. The defendant need not intend to cause the mails to be used." R.A.G.S. Couture, Inc. v. Hyatt, 774 F.2d 1350, 1354 (5th Cir. 1985). See also United States v. Blankenship, 746 F.2d 233 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 750 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Finney, 714 F.2d 420 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Toney, 598 F.2d 1349, 1355 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1033, 100 S. Ct. 706, 62 L. Ed. 2d 670 (1980). The government's burden, therefore, is to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that appellants agreed to engage in a scheme to defraud in which they contemplated that the mails would likely be used.
Moreover, we find that the abundant evidence tying Massey to the various other parts of the scheme to defraud suffice to establish that he was a member of the conspiracy, regardless of his subjective knowledge of the relationship between UCMM and UCFC in Baton Rouge. It is well settled that "once the existence of a conspiracy and the defendant's participation in it are both established, slight evidence of the defendant's knowledge of the scheme may be sufficient to sustain the jury's finding that he or she was a member." United States v. Malatesta, 583 F.2d 748, 756 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 962, 99 S. Ct. 1508, 59 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1979). See also United States v. Reda, 765 F.2d 715 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Marsh, 747 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1984); United States v. Green, 735 F.2d 1018 (7th Cir. 1984); United States v. Crockett, 534 F.2d 589, 594 (5th Cir. 1976). A conspiracy has been established in which it was reasonably foreseeable that the mails would be used. Massey's participation in that conspiracy has been established. We find the evidence summarized above satisfies the Malatesta 's "slight evidence" standard.
Where variance between the indictment and the proof at trial is alleged, a defendant is entitled to a reversal only upon a showing that the variance prejudiced his substantial rights. Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 81, 55 S. Ct. 629, 630, 79 L. Ed. 1314 (1935) ("The true inquiry ... is not whether there has been a variance ... but whether there has been such a variance as to 'affect the substantial rights' of the accused."); United States v. Young, 730 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1984). An indictment is sufficient if it "first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs the defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117, 94 S. Ct. 2887, 2907, 41 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1974). See also United States v. Manotas-Mejia, 824 F.2d 360, (5th Cir. 1987) ("The indictment and proof must coincide to protect the accused from (1) surprise and (2) the risk of another prosecution for the same crime.").
Appellants cite Lubin v. United States, 313 F.2d 419 (9th Cir. 1963), to support their claim of prejudice. In Lubin, the government charged appellants with robbing a bank, but the government's proof showed that the money was stolen from an armored car company. This case demonstrates nothing about the standard of prejudice, for the government in Lubin simply failed to prove that a federal crime had been committed: no bank had been robbed. Cases in which courts have held that a variance did not require a reversal include United States v. Young, supra, 730 F.2d at 225 (holding that indictment charging goods shipped "in interstate commerce" was not fatally at variance with proof showing goods shipped "in interstate or foreign commerce"); United States v. Gaultier, 727 F.2d 711 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding that indictment charging use of "wires" in interstate commerce was not fatally at variance with proof showing use of wires, microwave or satellite transmission in interstate commerce); United States v. Massey, 629 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1980) (holding that indictment charging defendant with "presenting" a bill of sale was not fatally at variance with proof showing that defendant mailed the bill of sale), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 969, 101 S. Ct. 1490, 67 L. Ed. 2d 620 (1981); and United States v. Kaplan, 576 F.2d 598 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that indictment referring to pipe sold to "United Supply" was not fatally at variance with proof showing pipe sold to "United Pipe and Supply"), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1078, 99 S. Ct. 858, 59 L. Ed. 2d 47 (1979).
The variance in this case is not critical. The indictment clearly indicated that although UCMM was the immediate provider of funds, UCFC was involved in the conspiracy as the parent of UCMM and the destination of loan documents to be sent through U.S. mails as part of the conspiracy. This case can be contrasted with Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 80 S. Ct. 270, 4 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1960), where the Supreme Court found a fatal variance between an indictment charging defendant with interrupting the movement of sand into Pennsylvania and the government's proof that the defendant interrupted the movement of steel out of Pennsylvania. In Stirone, the indictment failed to give notice of the relevant events constituting the crime. Here, the indictment provided full specificity regarding the exact events giving rise to the charge of conspiracy.
This rigorous particularity not only informed appellants about exactly what actions they had to answer for, but it also provided adequate protection against the risk of another prosecution for the same conspiracy. Should appellants be indicted again, the government would not be able to rely on these actions unless it can show that the subsequent indictment charges a different offense than does the indictment in the case before us. See United States v. Nichols, 741 F.2d 767, 771 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1214, 105 S. Ct. 1186, 84 L. Ed. 2d 333 (1985). We therefore reject appellants' claim that a fatal variance existed between the indictment and the government's proof at trial.
Massey complains of the "spill-over" effect of introducing evidence incriminating Wages that did not incriminate Massey. Specifically, Massey refers to overt acts committed in regard to the Clark loan, with which, he contends, he had no connection. Baker, however, testified that Massey was involved in both loans. Baker claimed that Massey and Wages discussed with him the collateral for the Clark loan. The jury had the right to believe this testimony of Baker. With this evidence the jury properly could find that there was one conspiracy and that Massey was involved in it. See United States v. Winship, 724 F.2d 1116, 1122 (5th Cir. 1984) ("The crucial factor in finding a single conspiracy centers on whether the alleged co-conspirators all took part in a common plan or scheme."). If the loans were part of one conspiracy, then there is no cause for the application of the spill-over doctrine.
Even if the loans were not related, however, Massey would still not be entitled to a reversal because the district court properly instructed the jury that they should consider separately the evidence offered against each defendant. Such appropriate limiting instructions are sufficient to prevent the threat of prejudice resulting from unsevered trials. See United States v. Lamp, 779 F.2d 1088 (5th Cir.) (affirming conviction obtained in an unsevered trial even though the evidence was complex and interrelated), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S. Ct. 2255, 90 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1986); Harrelson, supra, 754 F.2d at 1174; United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971 (5th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S. Ct. 2965, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1354 (1982); United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F.2d 1127 (5th Cir. 1981).
Appellants assert that the trial court committed reversible error in admitting a partially-disclosed typewritten document into evidence. The admissibility of evidence is properly within the discretion of the district court, and evidentiary rulings will be reversed only upon a finding that that discretion was abused. Micholas v. Homelite Corp., 780 F.2d 1150, 1155 (5th Cir. 1986).
Moreover, the fact that the government did not inform each and every defense attorney about the existence of the typewritten document is not reversible error. Admission of the typewritten document added little to the government's case, since the prosecution ultimately failed to prove that anything had been mailed. See United States v. Watson, 669 F.2d 1374, 1384 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that government's disclosure to one defense attorney out of several was sufficient, and that introduction of evidence did not substantially prejudice defendants because it added little to the government's case). Cf. United States v. Hartley, 678 F.2d 961 (11th Cir. 1982) (affirming district court's exclusion of documents not disclosed to any defense attorneys, but allowing the government to introduce testimony concerning excluded documents), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1170, 103 S. Ct. 815, 74 L. Ed. 2d 1014 (1983). The evidentiary ruling by the district court was not an abuse of discretion.
Appellant Wages argues that assessments of costs must be made before sentencing is imposed, citing Barnes v. United States, 223 F.2d 891 (5th Cir. 1955), and United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 386 (9th Cir. 1979). There is no such rule, and both cases cited by Wages are inapposite. In Barnes, the district court attempted to condition the imposition of costs on the defendant's attempt to seek a reversal of the court's judgment, and on that judgment's affirmance. Jones dealt with the timeliness of a second motion for reconsideration of a suppression motion.
Appellant Wages claims that the government improperly relied on Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 in its September 25 motion. The government acknowledges that Rule 36 cannot be used to change the substantive terms of a sentence, but explains that reference to the rule was inadvertent. In any event, Rule 9 of the district court's local rules provides adequate authority for the government's motion. In pertinent part, that rule provides:
Appellants do not allege any error regarding their sentences to three-year imprisonment based on their convictions on the conspiracy charge. Since the sentences imposed are well within the statutory limitations, see 18 U.S.C. § 371, and there is no claim that the district court abused its discretion, there is no need to remand the case for resentencing. See United States v. Buckley, 586 F.2d 498, 505 (5th Cir. 1978) (declining to remand case for resentencing where conviction for lesser-included offense was reversed and portion of sentence vacated), reh'g denied, 589 F.2d 1114 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 982, 99 S. Ct. 1792, 60 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1979)