Task: songer_adminrev

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. Your task is to identify the federal agency (if any) whose decision was reviewed by the court of appeals. If there was no prior agency action, choose "not applicable".

MOORE, Circuit Judge:
Appellants Alfred Brawer, Ralph Ig-nomirello, and Wassil Kreshik appeal from judgments of conviction entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after a seven-day trial by jury before Judge Milton Pollack. The three-count indictment charged each appellant and one Salvatore L. Mauceli, a/k/a Steve Marsh (named only as a co-conspirator), with: (1) conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, and 2314, by unlawfully, wilfully, and knowingly transporting stolen United States Treasury Bills in interstate and foreign commerce; (2) transportation of $262,000 of stolen Treasury Bills in foreign commerce between New York City and Zurich, Switzerland; and (3) transportation of said bills between New York City and Montreal, Canada. Appellants were found guilty as charged on all three counts.
At the close of the government’s evidence, and again at the close of their respective cases, each appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts; the motions were denied. After the jury rendered its verdict each appellant moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; these motions were also denied.
Brawer was sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment on Count 1 and to seven-year terms of imprisonment on Counts 2 and 3, the sentences to run concurrently. Ignomirello was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year and a day on each count, the terms to run concurrently, with parole available after service of a term of two months, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4208(a)(1). Kreshik was sentenced on Count 1 to a term of imprisonment of one year and a day, with parole available after service of a term of two months; as to Counts 2 and 3, imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for a period of five years, to commence upon expiration of the term of imprisonment on Count 1.
I. THE EVIDENCE
Since all three appellants question the sufficiency of the evidence upon which they were convicted, it is necessary to state the facts adduced at trial in some detail.
The narrative begins on March 6, 1969, the date on which the brokerage house of Francis I. duPont & Co. (du-Pont) received at its offices in New York City $342,000 in six-month United States Treasury Bills which had been issued that same day. The serial numbers of the Treasury Bills were entered on duPont’s records and the securities were deposited in one of duPont’s vaults. DuPont paid $331,035.48 for the Bills, an amount reflecting a three percent discount from face value. One month later, after a physical search of du-Pont’s offices on April 7 or 8, 1969, the Bills were found to be missing.
At about the time duPont received the Bills, that is, during the first week of March, 1969, appellant Kreshik, an Orthodox Catholic priest with a parish in Bayonne, New Jersey, approached a long-time friend, banker, and lawyer named Edward Dembe, to ask his assistance in negotiating the sale of some securities. Kreshik told Dembe that an ailing parishioner wished to dispose of some government “bonds” and that for personal reasons the parishioner wished to sell without his partners knowing about it. The parishioner wanted to sell them abroad. At trial Dembe, a government witness, testified that on that occasion Kreshik “told me that he had a parishioner whom he was trying to help, and this parishioner wanted to sell or dispose of some government bonds but he wanted to dispose of them outside of the country, and he wanted to know if I could direct him or help him introduce to someone [sic] or in some way help with this disposition of these bonds.” (Trial Transcript, hereinafter “Tr.”, at 65). Dembe warned Kreshik to be careful that the securities were not stolen; Kreshik assured Dembe that he was merely trying to help an ailing parishioner, that he knew the parishioner well, that the parishioner was trustworthy, and that the transaction was entirely legitimate (Tr. at 66-67). Of significance concerning this first of several meetings between Dembe and Kreshik was Dem-be’s trial testimony that Kreshik at each meeting had neglected or refused to divulge either the parishioner’s name or the reason for selling the securities abroad on the ground that it was “like information he had gotten in the confessional.” (Tr. at 66). This testimony conflicted with Kreshik’s grand jury testimony (Kreshik did not testify at trial) in which he claimed that he had supplied Dembe with the parishioner’s name, one Anthony Pirozzi, stating “I have no reason to hide anything from anyone,” (Tr. at 564) and that Pirozzi had never instructed him that the Bills had to be sold abroad. (Tr. at 564-65). Kreshik also testified at the grand jury that at no time had he asked parishioner Pirozzi where the latter had gotten the large number of securities in question. (Tr. at 564).
At a second meeting between Kreshik and Dembe, occurring approximately ten days after the first, Kreshik informed Dembe that the securities were not “bonds” but Treasury Bills. Dembe examined several of the Bills which Kre-shik had brought him and determined that they were not counterfeit. After Kreshik repeatedly reiterated his parishioner’s interest in selling the securities abroad, Dembe agreed to put Kreshik in contact with someone “who has some knowledge of securities in foreign markets.” (Tr. at 76). The “someone” Dembe had in mind was appellant Alfred Brawer, a man not known to Kreshik, but one whom Dembe knew as a customer of the bank and as one who also had had previous dealings in foreign securities. Brawer characterized himself as a “fiscal monetary expert as to foreign currency transactions and banking accounts normally in other countries.” (Brawer Brief at 27).
Dembe arranged a meeting between Kreshik and Brawer for some time in late March or early April, at Kreshik's parish in Bayonne. Dembe introduced Brawer as “the gentleman that will be able to take care of the securities” (Tr. at 561) and then apparently departed the scene, with no further participation in the ensuing events.
As a result of the meeting at the parish Kreshik went to Pirozzi’s home, picked up a package containing the Treasury Bills, and delivered them to Brawer the following morning. Appellant Kreshik contends that his involvement in the transaction, which he characterized as an innocent attempt to help an ailing parishioner who wanted to sell the securities anonymously so that his business partners would not know of it, ended with delivery of the bills to Brawer, and that he had absolutely no involvement in, or knowledge of, the events following. (Kreshik Brief at 4). The record tends to support Kreshik’s contention, since the testimony of none of the witnesses at trial connected him with the subsequent actions of appellants Brawer, Ignomirello and co-conspirator Mauceli. Mauceli, a government witness, testified that he never knew or even saw Kreshik. (Tr. at 124-25). Dembe testified that after Mauceli’s arrest, “Father Kreshik was just as shocked as I was” and that Kreshik indicated he was going to see his ailing parishioner. (Tr. at 118).
On April 9, 1969, approximately one week after he first discussed the Treasury Bills with Kreshik, Brawer telephoned Mauceli, a photographer who lived in Teaneck, New Jersey, with whom Brawer “had had other big financial transactions.” (Brawer Brief at 29). Brawer told Mauceli that “I finally got something with which we can make some money” (Tr. at 130), explaining that he had received a large quantity of Treasury Bills from a priest who, in turn, had obtained them from a parishioner who wanted to sell the Bills abroad because of “tax considerations.” (Tr. at 130-31). Brawer assured Mauceli that the Bills were not stolen or tainted in any way, stating, “Would a. priest get involved in stolen items?” (Tr. at 131). Brawer knew that Mauceli had foreign contacts who might be interested in buying the securities and asked him if he would help negotiate a sale abroad. Mauceli said he could telephone a Canadian contact, one Jacques Riel, immediately. Brawer agreed to the idea. (Tr. at 133). Mauceli testified at trial that Brawer had outlined explicit conditions for the sale of the securities: (1) the Bills had to be sold abroad (Tr. at 135); (2) the Bills should be sold at “90 percent of face value, and if that proved difficult to ask for 85 percent of face value” (Tr. at 131); (3) Brawer and Mauceli would share equally 10% of the sale price as their “commission” (Tr. at 150); (4) the sale “was supposed to be and had to be a cash deal” (Tr. at 144); (5) the securities had to be sold as quickly as possible — “within two days at the most” (Tr. at 178); and (6) the identity of the priest had to be kept secret, for “tax reasons” (Tr. at 139). Mauceli quickly telephoned the Canadian, Riel, and made arrangements to fly to Montreal in two days’ time, that is, on Friday, April 11th. Brawer would meet Mauceli at LaGuardia Airport and give him the $262,000 worth of Bills for the trip to Montreal.
On Friday, April 11th, the two met at the airport, as scheduled. Brawer had asked a friend, appellant Ralph Ignomirello, to accompany Mauceli on the trip to Montreal “just in case something happened because these were bearer instruments and * * * could be stolen * * * and whoever had possession of them could easily sell them.” (Tr. at 142). According to Mauceli’s trial testimony, Mauceli again asked Brawer if the securities were legitimate; Brawer assured him they were, stating, “You can take them to any bank and check them against any stolen securities list and you will find that they are not stolen. * * * But I can’t say what might show up three, four, five, six months from now.” (Tr. 143-44). While Ignomirello was purchasing his plane ticket, and out of earshot, Brawer also informed Mauceli that if this deal went well, “[T]here was an additional $500,000 worth of Treasury Bills that we could sell later.” (Tr. at 144).
In Montreal, Mauceli, using the name “Steve Marsh”, and Ignomirello met with Jacques Riel, Mauceli’s contact. After being informed of the facts surrounding the Treasury Bills, Riel asked Mauceli who Ignomirello was. Mauceli answered that he “represented the interests of the priest,” to which Ignomirello remarked, “Yes, that’s true.” (Tr. at 149). Riel agreed to help Mauceli sell the securities to Canadian buyers, taking as his commission between one and three percent of the face value of the Bills. Riel took the two travellers to the offices of the North American Express Monorail Company, Ltd., where two officers of that company, Joseph Welsch and Frank Bubic, indicated an interest in the securities. Welsch, however, first wanted to know the serial numbers of the Bills so that he could have his bank cheek to see whether the Bills were stolen. (Tr. 153). Ignomirello produced the securities; Welsch copied the numbers. Near the close of this meeting, Welsch and Bubic asked whether Mauee-li had any other securities to sell; Ig-nomirello nodded a signal to Mauceli. The latter then indicated that there might be an additional $500,000 worth of Treasury Bills available for sale, and.that they could be bought for 85% of the face value. The Canadians expressed interest in purchasing this large quantity of bills as well. (Tr. at 155). The meeting ended with the understanding that Mauceli and Ignomirello would return to New York City and that Mau-celi would telephone Welsch and Bubic on the following Monday, April 14th, to confirm the sale. On the way to the airport Ignomirello warned Mauceli that Brawer would be angry because the deal had not been consummated the same day, as per his instructions.
Ignomirello had spoken with clairvoyance. When the two met Brawer at his home that evening, Brawer was indeed angry, criticizing Mauceli for “leaving [the serial] numbers floating around Canada” and for bungling the deal.' (Tr. at 163). Brawer then asked Mauceli if he knew anyone in Switzerland (where Brawer had a bank account) who might be interested in purchasing the Bills. Mauceli answered that he did not, but that a friend of his, one Bill Zylka, did have a contact in Zurich who might be interested in negotiating a sale. Brawer directed Mauceli to call Zylka, but instructed him not to mention Brawer’s involvement. (Tr. at 165). Mauceli met with Zylka the next day, Saturday, April 12th, and made arrangements to fly to Switzerland on Monday, April 14th.
Mauceli’s trip to Switzerland was unproductive. Zylka’s Swiss contact was unwilling to agree to the terms of sale: Mauceli wanted to sell within two days’ time as per Brawer’s orders; the Swiss contact insisted on ten days. The deal fell through. Mauceli flew back to New York City that same day, April 15th, 1969, where he was met by Brawer at the airport. Brawer was not pleased with Mauceli’s efforts, again admonishing him for “showing these bills and the [serial] numbers all over the world, and we might have some problems because of that.” (Tr. at 178).
At the airport Mauceli offered to, and did, call the Canadians to see if they still were interested in the securities. They indicated that they were interested, and arranged for Bubic to fly to New York City the next day to meet with Mauceli. The two did meet the next day, April 16th, and they proceeded to the Wall Street area. They went to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce where they deposited the Bills. Bubic told a bank official that the Bills had come from his attorney in Montreal and that they were to be used as a good-faith deposit on a $2 million contract in which his company was involved. The Bills so deposited, Mauceli and Bubic flew to Montreal, where the deal was to be consummated the next day. That evening Mauceli telephoned Brawer to inform him of the developments. Brawer told Mauceli that Canadian money would be acceptable, and instructed him to take a circuitous route back to New York City after completing the deal. (Tr. at 190-91).
The next day visited new problems on Mauceli’s odyssey, however. The Canadian bank with which Bubic and.Welsch were dealing insisted on proof of ownership of the Bills. (Tr. at 192-93). Mauceli telephoned Brawer again long distance. According to Mauceli, Brawer suggested that Mauceli represent himself as the owner, and that he sign an affidavit so indicating. The bank wouldn’t accept the affidavit. (Id.) Mauceli called Brawer again. The substance of his conversation was hotly contested at trial, for reasons that become evident. Mauceli testified that in this second telephone conversation, Brawer had said to him: “Well, if they will do the deal today, see if they will accept [the securities] for 65 percent of face value, but they must do the deal today.” (Tr. at 193). This offer was also rejected and the deal fell through. Welsch agreed to fly to New York City with Mauceli to retrieve the securities from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Arriving in New York, Mauceli telephoned Brawer from the airport. He expressed trepidation with having to retrieve the securities from the bank and again asked Brawer if the Bills had been stolen. Brawer responded, “How the hell do I know? I don’t know where the bills originally came from.” Brawer added, “Don’t run now because if you run now, you are going to look guilty as sin. You went this far, go all the way.” (Tr. at 194-95). The telephone call completed, Mauceli and Welsch proceeded to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce to retrieve the Bills. Awaiting'their arrival were special agents of the FBI, who promptly arrested the two men.
Approximately two weeks after his arrest, Mauceli testified at trial, he met with Brawer at the latter’s home. Mauceli noticed bruises on Brawer’s head; Brawer explained that he had been beaten by unknown persons, stating that he “was in trouble of being physically harmed and so was [Mauceli] because certain people who were known to be tough people think we doubleerossed them, that we sold the securities and pocketed the money.” (Tr. at 422). Brawer told Mauceli “to keep [his] mouth shut, to stand trial alone, * * * [and] never take the stand and reveal where [he] got these securities, otherwise [he] definitely would be harmed.” (Tr. at 423). In the weeks that followed and prior to the time appellants were arrested, Brawer and Mauceli met numerous times, with Brawer reiterating his advice, and telling Mauceli that he would be “rewarded” later on for taking the blame. (Tr. at 425). Brawer indicated that he, unfortunately, could not come forward and reveal where the Bills had come from “because of the people involved.” (Tr. at 426). At one point Brawer purportedly assisted Mauceli in preparing a false typewritten version of the facts to present to Mauceli’s counsel (Id.).
Mauceli decided to plead guilty, however. At a meeting held some two and one-half weeks before trial at the home of Mrs. Pirozzi, widow of the ailing parishioner from whom appellant Kreshik had obtained the Treasury Bills, Brawer tried to persuade Mauceli to change his guilty plea so that “we could present a united front at a trial.” (Tr. at 573). Kreshik was not present at this meeting. Brawer offered to enlist the services of a psychiatrist, who would testify that because of his mental health Mauceli had not known what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, as well as to pay for Mauceli’s attorney’s fees if he stood trial; mention of a “reward” to Mauceli for following orders was again made at this meeting. (Tr. at 573-74). Although Mauceli, purportedly out of fear, agreed at the close of the meeting to change his guilty plea, he subsequently declined to do so, and testified against Brawer and Ignomirello at trial.
II. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE
All three appellants attack their convictions on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to show that they had known that they were dealing with stolen securities. Appellant Kreshik argues, inter alia, (Brief at 10) that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal, and in submitting his ease to the jury, since there was “not enough evidence for any reasonable man to believe, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ ” that he actually knew the Bills were stolen, citing United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240 (2d Cir. 1972). Kreshik argues that the court may have erred by incorrectly applying the sufficiency of the evidence standard set forth in United States v. Feinberg, 140 F.2d 592 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 322 U.S. 726-727, 64 S.Ct. 943, 88 L.Ed. 1562 (1944), rather than the more exacting standard established by this Court when we overruled Feinberg in United States v. Taylor, supra, and in submitting this case to the jury. Kreshik further argues that on appeal he is entitled to have the validity of the trial court’s denial of his motion for acquittal measured solely in the light of the evidence presented by the government against him, apart from the evidence offered against, and by, his co-defendants Brawer and Ignomirello, who were represented separately at trial. United States v. Carneglia, 468 F.2d 1084, 1087 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1972); Cephus v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 15, 324 F.2d 893 (1963).
Brawer and Ignomirello, on appeal as at trial jointly represented by the same counsel, echo Kreshik’s argument on the sufficiency of the evidence question, namely, that the evidence was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that it failed to prove that they actually knew the Bills they were attempting to sell were stolen, citing Taylor, supra. Ignomirello argues in addition that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the definition of a co-conspirator and in his response to a jury inquiry on this point, and that, in any event, the evidence was insufficient to establish his role as a co-conspirator and his case should not have gone to the jury.
Appellants’ claim of insufficiency of the evidence to prove guilty knowledge, although a close question as regards Kreshik, is rejected. On appeal the evidence in the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Tortorello, 480 F.2d 764 (2d Cir., 1973); United States v. D’Avanzo, 443 F.2d 1224, 1225 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 850, 92 S.Ct. 86, 30 L.Ed.2d 89 (1971). Considering the evidence as to each appellant in its entirety, United States v. Wisniewski, 478 F.2d 274, 279 (2d Cir., 1973); United States v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389, 392 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 974, 87 S.Ct. 514, 17 L.Ed.2d 437 (1966), we are of the opinion that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Kreshik, Brawer, Ignomirello and Mauceli were each active participants in the scheme to sell $262,000 worth of stolen Treasury Bills. Our analysis of the evidence begins but does not end with reference to the rule of law early established by the Supreme Court in Wilson v. United States, 162 U.S. 613, 619, 16 S.Ct. 895, 898, 40 L.Ed. 1090 (1896), a principle we have often applied:
Possession of the fruits of crime, recently after its commission, justifies the inference that the possession is guilty possession, and, though only prima facie evidence of guilt, may be of controlling weight unless explained by the circumstances or accounted for in some way consistent with innocence.
See, e. g., United States v. Jacobs, 475 F.2d 270, 280 (2d Cir., 1973); United States v. DeSisto, 329 F.2d 929, 935 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 979, 84 S.Ct. 1885, 12 L.Ed.2d 747 (1964); United States v. Izzi, 427 F.2d 293, 297 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 2244, 26 L.Ed.2d 794 (1970). And although appellants argue that they can meet the rule of Wilson, supra, by pointing to evidence consistent with their innocence on the question of guilty knowledge, we think the government introduced substantial evidence to rebut defendants’ efforts to demonstrate innocent possession.
As we have noted, the evidence on guilty knowledge as to Kreshik presents a close question but one which ultimately must be resolved against him. We start with a visit in early March 1969 by Kreshik, a priest of the Orthodox Catholic faith, to Edward Dembe, a banker and lawyer. According to Kre-shik, his purpose in approaching Dembe was to help minister to the needs of a dying parishioner, Anthony Pirozzi, who wanted to sell, in a surreptitious manner, some $262,000 worth of securities. Dembe, a long-time friend of Kreshik and banker to the latter’s parish, on more than one occasion warned the priest that the Bills might be stolen. The Bills were, in fact, stolen at about that time from a Wall Street brokerage house; inexplicably they found their way into the hands of Pirozzi, who was in the trucking business. The testimony of Kreshik’s long-time friend, Dembe, gave rise to circumstantial evidence most injurious to Kreshik. Dembe testified, for example, that despite his warnings about stolen Bills, Kreshik continued to refuse to name the ailing parishioner for whom he was acting and to stipulate that the Bills had to be sold abroad. Even accepting the fact that Kreshik was not knowledgeable about Treasury Bills and their easy negotiability, and that such Bills, especially in the quantity here involved, can be, and often are, involved in illicit transfer; and even accepting his argument that, as a priest, he had complete faith in Pirozzi’s honesty, Kreshik’s actions in this affair cast serious doubt on his claim of innocence. The jury was entitled to consider the question whether a reasonably cautious man, even a very trusting man such as Kreshik professed to be, would not have inquired of the source of the bills, allegedly Pirozzi, as to whether the Bills were legitimate. And yet, Kre-shik testified before the grand jury that at no time did he ask Pirozzi where he had gotten the securities (Tr. at 564), nor, unknowledgeable as he was about securities, was he surprised that Pirozzi would want to sell over a quarter million dollars worth of securities in such questionable fashion (id.).
Upon his decision that the bills were not counterfeit, and wanting to help an old friend and clergyman who assured him of the legitimacy of the deal, Dembe concluded that he would put Kreshik in touch with Brawer. All defendants, including Kreshik, place great reliance upon Dembe’s decision to introduce Kre-shik to Brawer. They argue that if Dembe, an experienced banker and lawyer, would decide to involve himself in these proceedings, and he was not indicted, a fortiori, how can they be guilty when acting in reliance on Dembe’s judgment? The answer is that, although Dembe himself should have known better than to involve himself in such a sale of mysteriously derived securities since, as a banker, he should have known that institutions, and not individuals, typically trade in such large quantities, the totality of his actions, unlike those of the appellants, falls short of complicity in a scheme in which the others, by their actions, demonstrated guilty knowledge of the true nature of the securities. Throughout the various attempts to sell the Bills, at a sale price ranging from 90% to 65% of face value, none of the appellants, oddly enough, apparently ever bothered to obtain, or inquire about, a bill of sale or affidavit of ownership from the true.owner of the Bills. Maueeli testified that Brawer had wanted Maueeli to pose as the true owner. Parenthetically, the question arises why Brawer did not request of Kreshik that the latter obtain proof of ownership from his ailing parishioner prior to attempting to sell the Bills. It would appear that Brawer, if he did not in fact suspect that the Bills were “hot,” did not care to find out — preferring to rely on ignorance of the truth as a shield. There was also evidence that Brawer was uncomfortable with the fact that Mauceli was leaving the serial numbers of the Bills with potentially interested purchasers — such discomfort does not normally attach to a legitimate transaction, unless the parties suspect that an inquiry using the serial numbers might lead to the discovery that the Bills were either counterfeit or stolen. Whenever questions were raised regarding the legitimacy of the Bills, rather than seeking to obtain proof positive from the true owner that the Bills were not stolen, the defendants were content with the information that Kreshik, a clergyman, was involved, as though this fact alone assured regularity of the transaction.
The jury could reasonably conclude, from all the facts available to Kreshik, that his guilty knowledge could be established by the fact that he deliberately had closed his eyes to avoid knowing whether or not he was committing an unlawful act, see United States v. Jacobs, supra, 475 F.2d at 287; cf. United States v. Benjamin, 828 F.2d 854, 862-863 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 953, 84 S.Ct. 1631, 12 L.Ed.2d 497 (1964); or by the fact that he had acted with reckless disregard of whether the Bills were stolen and with a conscious purpose of avoiding learning the truth, see Benjamin, supra, 328 F.2d at 862.
On appeal Kreshik argues that the trial court, in ruling on his motion for directed judgment of acquittal, did not make clear whether he was applying the test of sufficiency set down in Feinberg, supra, or that recently adopted by this Court in Taylor, supra, overruling Feinberg. Kreshik argues that the decision in Taylor was filed on Thursday, July 6, 1972, and that the trial court below denied Kreshik’s motion on Monday, July 10, 1972, four days later. The court’s failure to indicate which test it was applying, argues Kreshik, evidences error since the evidence is not sufficient to meet the Taylor standard, and, therefore, had the court applied Taylor, he would have granted the motion of acquittal. Whether measured by the test of Feinberg or that of Taylor, however, we think that the trial court properly denied the motion and properly submitted Kreshik's case to the jury. In Taylor we held that a standard stricter than that in Feinberg must be applied by a trial court when ruling on a motion for acquittal for insufficiency of the evidence in a criminal trial, and that the court’s inquiry should be
whether the reasonable mind of a juror could draw such an inference from [the evidence] so that he “might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” 464 F.2d at 244-245.
Even though the record does not indicate whether the trial court applied Taylor, the government’s circumstantial evidence against Kreshik, as recited above, under Taylor warranted submission to the jury. Kreshik’s reliance by analogy on our decision in United States v. Rappaport, 312 F.2d 502 (2d Cir. 1963), is misplaced since the facts of that ease are distinguishable in material respects from those before us.
The evidence supporting the inference of guilty knowledge established by the Wilson case, supra, 162 U.S. at 619, 16 S.Ct. 895, 40 L.Ed. 1090, was, we think, even stronger against Brawer and Ignomirello than that against Kreshik. The evidence as set out in Part I, supra, was more than ample to support submission of the case against them to the jury, under the Taylor standard, and no error was committed in the court’s denial of their motions for acquittal. Ignomirello’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to establish his participation in the conspiracy to sell the stolen securities lacks force when viewed in the light of his actions while accompanying Mauceli to Canada to sell the Bills. See United States v. Marchese, 438 F.2d 452, 455 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 1012, 91 S.Ct. 2188, 29 L.Ed.2d 435 (1971); United States v. Izzi, supra, 427 F.2d at 297. We hold, therefore, that the evidence was sufficient to warrant submission to the jury, and that the trial court did not err in so doing.
III. THE JURY CHARGE
Each of the appellants alleges numerous errors in the jury instructions, errors which we will consider seriatim as follows: (1) the instructions on “knowledge” that the Bills were stolen; (2) the instructions as to the inference to be drawn from appellants’ possession of the Bills; and (3) the court’s failure to “tailor” the jury instructions to each appellant.
A. The Court’s Instructions as to Knowledge
Appellants 'first challenge the charge with respect to guilty knowledge; criticism is directed specifically to the language which we have italicized in the note. Appellant Kreshik argues that the challenged language is similar to that which we held defective in United States v. Fields, 466 F.2d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 1972). Brawer and Ignomirello argue further that the instruction shifted onto them the burden of proving their innocence, and that it relieved the government of its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually knew the Bills were stolen, citing In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). We are not persuaded by these arguments.
As we recently noted in United States v. Jacobs, supra, 475 F.2d at 287-288, the challenged (italicized) language, which is drawn from the definition of “knowledge” found in the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code § 2.02(7) (Proposed Official Draft, 1962), has received varying degrees of approval in Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 46 n. 93, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57 (1969); United States v. Matalon, 425 F.2d 70 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 841, 91 S.Ct. 82, 27 L.Ed.2d 76 (1970); United States v. Squires, 440 F.2d 859, 863 (2d Cir. 1971); and United States v. Sarantos, 455 F.2d 877, 880-882 (2d Cir. 1972). For the reasons we gave in Jacobs, supra, we hold that the lower court’s charge on knowledge is not defective under Fields. As in Jacobs, the court here was careful not to rely entirely on the American Law Institute definition which, we agree, could cause problems in other situations; a careful reading of the entire charge shows that the court emphasized the element of a defendant’s “deliberately elos[ing] his eyes to what otherwise would have been obvious to him”; the jury could infer guilty knowledge if it found “from all the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a conscious purpose to avoid learning the source of the Treasury bills”; and that “a defendant’s knowledge of a fact may be inferred from wilful blindness to the existence of the fact.” (Tr. at 1075-76). The charge thus differs significantly from that found defective in Fields since unlike the situation in Fields, the jurors here were made aware that they had to find either that defendants actually knew the Bills had been stolen or that defendants by their conduct demonstrated that they had deliberately shut their eyes to what they had ample reason to believe was the truth. United States v. Jacobs, supra, 475 F.2d at 288.
B. The Court’s Instruction as to Inferences to Be Drawn from Appellants’ Possession of the Bills
Appellants also challenge the trial Court’s instruction regarding the inference of guilty knowledge which the jury could draw from the proof that each appellant possessed property recently stolen. Kreshik argues that the effect of this instruction, coupled with a prior instruction permitting the jury to infer theft of the Bills from their mysterious disappearance from the duPont vault, improperly permitted the jury

Question: What federal agency's decision was reviewed by the court of appeals?
A. Benefits Review Board
B. Civil Aeronautics Board
C. Civil Service Commission
D. Federal Communications Commission
E. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
F. Federal Power Commission
G. Federal Maritime Commission
H. Federal Trade Commission
I. Interstate Commerce Commission
J. National Labor Relations Board
K. Atomic Energy Commission
L. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
M. Securities & Exchange Commission
N. Other federal agency
O. Not ascertained or not applicable
Answer:

Answer: O