Opinion ID: 3216857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Huebner

Text: Huebner also failed to renew his motion for acquittal after the close of the evidence, so we review his sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges for a manifest miscarriage of justice. See Price, 134 F.3d at 350. Huebner contends that there was insufficient evidence at trial to convict him of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. With respect to his conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, § 1349, Huebner alleges that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he formed an agreement to commit the crime. See United States v. Cunningham, 679 F.3d 355, 373 (6th Cir. 2012) (conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud requires the following: the defendant “knowingly and willfully joined in an agreement with at least one other person to commit an act of [wire] fraud and that there was at least one overt act in furtherance of the agreement” (quoting United States v. Jamieson, 427 F.3d 394, 402 (6th Cir. 2005). Huebner insists that he simply 7 Case Nos. 14-3995/14-4124/14-4125/15-3014/15-3015, United States v. Teadt, et al. was a sincere believer in the imminent revaluation of dinar and that, like many people, he was duped by Rudolph Coenen. However, the record is not devoid of evidence indicating that Huebner conspired to commit wire fraud. The jury easily could have disbelieved Huebner’s claims of his sincere belief in Coenen and the revaluation of the dinar. Huebner failed to offer competent evidence at trial supporting his claims that such a revaluation was likely to occur. Instead, Huebner, Emmenecker, and Coenen falsely claimed that, through Executive Order 13303, President George W. Bush expressly endorsed the purchase of dinars. They also assured potential buyers of a fictitious United States statute called the “Overseas Investment Protection Act,” which supposedly guaranteed 90% of any investment made in Iraq. With regard to the hedge funds, which were illegal themselves, Huebner and the others told call-in listeners that there were delays due to pending paperwork with the Security Exchange Commission. That was proven to be a complete fabrication. During the raid on Huebner’s office, FBI agents discovered dinars stuffed in drawers, cabinets, and even an oven. Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury reasonably concluded that Huebner conspired to commit wire fraud when he participated in the dinar and hedge-fund schemes. Huebner also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to his conviction for money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Specifically, he contends that the government did not meet its burden of proving his mens rea during the time frame designated in the indictment. Huebner’s argument, however, rests entirely upon his claims that he was duped by Coenen’s lies and was not aware of any fraudulent activity until July 2011 when Karamchani and Varner confronted Huebner with Conen’s background. For the reasons stated above, Huebner’s argument fails. 8 Case Nos. 14-3995/14-4124/14-4125/15-3014/15-3015, United States v. Teadt, et al.