Opinion ID: 4526662
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Access-Device Fraud Charge (Count 1)

Text: Count 1, which charged Vance with access-device fraud under § 1029(a)(5), requires that the government prove Vance (1) knowingly used an access device issued to another person; (2) possessed an intent to defraud; (3) obtained any thing having an aggregate value of $1,000 or more over the course of one year by using the access device; and (4) affected interstate or foreign commerce by using the access device. According to 18 U.S.C. 1029(e)(1), an “access device” is “any card . . . or other means of account access that can be used . . . to obtain money, goods, services, or any other thing of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds.” Vance does not dispute that he knowingly used an access device issued to another person and that he obtained more than $1,000 over the course of 41 days by using the access device. He does dispute, however, whether there was sufficient proof and adequate findings that he possessed an intent to defraud and that he affected interstate or foreign commerce by using the access device. We consider these latter elements below.
To satisfy the interstate-commerce element of the access-device fraud statute, § 1029(a), Vance’s offense must have “affect[ed] interstate or foreign commerce.” See United States v. Scartz, 838 F.2d 876, 879 (6th Cir. 1988) (stating that § 1029(a)(1) requires proof that use of the access device “in some way affected interstate commerce”). The interstate-commerce element can be satisfied in many ways, including when an out-of-state bank’s “banking channels [are] used for gaining authorization approval of the charges on the cards.” Scartz, 838 F.2d at 879. The government introduced sufficient evidence for the district court to find that this standard was No. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 9 satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court made adequate factual findings related to this element. Indeed, with little contestation, the district court found that the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Vance’s access-device fraud affected interstate commerce. The court underscored its conclusion by even noting that “[t]here was never any issue regarding [whether Vance’s access-device fraud] affected interstate commerce.” Verdict, R. 73 (#516). The court then referenced the government’s witness from U.S. Bank, who testified that (1) Vance’s debit-card transactions associated with the U.S. Bank account were processed, as all debit-card transactions are customarily processed, through the bank’s normal banking channels; and (2) the debit card obtained by Vance was issued in Kentucky, a different state from where U.S. Bank is headquartered in Minnesota.5 This proof related to interstate commerce was sufficient to support the conviction, see Scartz, 838 F.2d at 879; see also United States v. Drummond, 255 F. App’x 60, 64-65 (6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (concluding that defendant’s possession of credit card numbers issued by foreign and interstate banks was sufficient evidence to support the interstate-commerce element of § 1029), and the court’s findings more than satisfied this court’s “liberal standard for reviewing the adequacy of the [trial court’s] findings” related to the interstate element. Zack, 291 F.3d at 412 (citation omitted; alteration in original).
An individual violates the access-device fraud statute when he or she “knowingly and with intent to defraud effects transactions, with 1 or more access devices issued to another person.” 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5). However, given the general nature of fraud crimes, “direct evidence of a defendant’s fraudulent intent is typically not available”; therefore, this court allows “specific intent to defraud [to] be established by circumstantial evidence and by inferences drawn from examining the scheme itself which demonstrate that the scheme was reasonably calculated [by the defendant] to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension.” 5 Offering additional commentary on this element, the district court referenced the bank witness’s testimony to validate its conclusion that “[the interstate commerce element] wasn’t a contested issue at the bench trial.” Trial, R. 72 (#516-517). No. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 10 United States v. Winkle, 477 F.3d 407, 413 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Yoon, 128 F.3d 515, 523-24 (7th Cir. 1997)). According to the district court, there was “more than ample circumstantial evidence” to support its finding that Vance had the intent to defraud. Verdict, R. 73 (#518). This circumstantial evidence, as the court outlined, included the following: • testimony of Mr. Spriggs, who stated that he never authorized Vance (1) to obtain a debit card in Mr. Spriggs’s name; (2) to withdraw money from the U.S. Bank account with that debit card; (3) to make purchases with that debit card; or (4) to draw on a line of credit associated with the U.S. Bank account; • testimony of the U.S. Bank representative who spoke with Vance over the phone, coupled with additional documentary evidence, showing that Vance pretended to be Mr. Spriggs during the course of the fraud; • evidence submitted from the government’s investigation of Vance, following his arrest, which included a trove of documents with Mr. Spriggs’s name, personal identifiers, and financial information in Vance’s car; • documentary evidence showing that after obtaining the debit card from U.S. Bank, Vance spent the entire line of credit quickly—in a matter of one week; and, • related documentary evidence showing that after he obtained the debit card, Vance drained the U.S. Bank account in a matter of one week. Notwithstanding this evidence presented by the government and outlined by the court, Vance contends that the factual findings related to the requisite “intent to defraud” element are inadequate and the evidence was insufficient. In support of both claims, he offers three arguments: (1) the court erred in its analysis by focusing on whether Vance lacked “authorization” from the Spriggses to use the debit card, as opposed to Vance possessing an “indicia of fraud,” Br. at 39; (2) under U.S. v. Nixon, 694 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2012), the district court was required to find that Vance possessed an intent to defraud both at the time he obtained the debit card from U.S. Bank, and then also when he used the debit card; and (3) the district court erred in relying on Mr. Spriggs’s testimony (which the government offered for the specific purpose of showing Vance’s intent to defraud) because the court erred in its initial determination that Mr. Spriggs was a “credible” witness, unaffected by trouble with memory recall. We find all of these arguments misplaced. No. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 11 When making its factual finding that Vance did demonstrate a necessary intent to defraud, the court cited statements made in Mr. Spriggs’s testimony and Mrs. Spriggs’s interview, which supported its conclusion that Vance demonstrated an intent to defraud. The court did not err in emphasizing Vance’s lack of “authorization” to use the debit card, as testified to by Mr. Spriggs, and supported by Mrs. Spriggs’s interview (which was also in evidence). The court’s findings were adequate to “reveal the logic behind [its] decision,” to “enable [us] to conduct a meaningful appellate review.” Zack, 291 F.3d at 412 (citing Grover Hill Grain Co., 728 F.2d at 792–93); see United States v. Gustafson, 30 F.3d 134 (Tbl.), 1994 WL 276883, at  (6th Cir. June 21, 1994). Based upon such a review, we conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s finding of Vance’s intent to defraud. In United States v. Warshak, this court determined that a defendant’s lack of authorization from the proper owners of credit cards, constituted valid circumstantial evidence of his intent to defraud those customers. 631 F.3d 266, 316 (6th Cir. 2010) (finding the government had proven defendant’s specific intent to defraud under § 1029(a)(5) when it referenced the defendant’s own testimony that he “deliberately charged customers’ credit cards without permission”); see also United States v. Farkas, 935 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1991) (“All the witnesses testified that their credit cards had been used without their authorization. Thus, the evidence, viewed most favorably to the government, clearly permits the inference that these credit card numbers were ‘obtained with intent to defraud.’”). Similar circumstantial evidence was presented by the government here. Such evidence included: (1) Vance’s attempted impersonation of Mr. Spriggs, both on the phone with the bank representative and in paper and online-bank applications; (2) Vance’s deliberate decision to conduct the majority of his transactions online or on a cellular phone (likely a tactic to maintain his anonymity); and (3) the haste in which Vance depleted the money from both the U.S. Bank account and the associated line of credit he established after having obtained the debit card in Mr. Spriggs’s name attached to the account. Collectively, this proof supports the district court’s inference that Vance was operating with the speed and level of anonymity of someone who lacked the authorization to use his greatNo. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 12 grandparents’ debit card for his personal purchases. Therefore, the district court did not commit clear error in determining that the government had shown Vance’s intent to defraud. Vance argues on appeal that his great-grandmother may have actually authorized his use of the U.S. Bank account, but there is sufficient evidence in the record for the district court’s finding otherwise. Given her existing illness, Mrs. Spriggs did not testify in court. However, her statements made to third-party investigators were properly admitted by the government into the record. In these statements, she indicated the following: (1) that she did not remember having the U.S. Bank account; and (2) that she never authorized Vance to obtain or use a debit card attached to that account. Furthermore, as referenced above, Vance’s numerous actions— including his impersonation of Mr. Spriggs; the haste with which he drained the U.S. Bank account and the attached line of credit; and the fact he conducted the majority of his transactions online or over the phone—seem inconsistent with his having received Mrs. Spriggs’s authorization. Although Vance references the testimony of his defense witnesses that his greatgrandparents occasionally allowed him to use their credit card to buy them food in the past, the district court reasonably could have found that these prior authorized uses are not relevant to the debit-card transactions associated with the U.S. Bank account. Moreover, the district court was entitled to determine, as it did, that the defense witnesses were not credible based on their stated motives, meaning their testimony was not credited at all in the process of the court reaching its verdict. Vance cites United States v. Nixon for the proposition that under 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), the government must show that a defendant possesses an intent to defraud “both when the ‘access device’ is obtained and when it is later used.” 694 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Though a creative argument, the reference is irrelevant to the facts at hand, given that Nixon involved subsection (a)(2) of 18 U.S.C. § 1029 (prohibiting the use of an “unauthorized access device,” as defined as “any access device that is lost, stolen, expired, revoked, canceled, or obtained with intent to defraud,” § 1029(e)(3))—not § 1029(a)(5) (prohibiting the use of access devices that include “any card . . . or other means of account access that can be used to obtain any thing of value, 1029(e)(1).”). This court applies different legal frameworks to analyze the use of these two types of access devices. Under § 1029(a)(5), this court does not require the No. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 13 government to show that the defendant obtained the access device with an intent to defraud; the government must only show that the defendant possessed an intent to defraud at the time the device was used. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(5) (declaring it unlawful if a person “knowingly and with intent to defraud effects transactions, with 1 or more access devices issued to another person”). The district court did not commit clear error when it relied on Mr. Spriggs’s testimony. This court “defer[s] to the district court’s credibility determinations absent reason to believe that they are clearly erroneous.” Wright, 747 F.3d at 409. We see no reason to disturb the district court’s credibility determination. Despite Vance’s claims to the contrary, Mr. Spriggs’s medical records do not state that he was diagnosed with dementia. See generally App. at 196-245. Although one medical report indicates that Mr. Spriggs has “mild cognitive impairment,” id. at 244, the reports otherwise describe him as being “alert,” e.g., id. at 204, 207, 213, 216, 227, 240, 243, “oriented to person, time, and place,” e.g., id. at 206, 207, 240, 243, “negative for confusion, [and] decreased concentration,” e.g., id. at 204, 232, 242, and as having normal “mood,” “affect,” “behavior,” “judgment,” and “thought content,” e.g., id. at 204, 207, 240. These findings provide an ample basis for the district court’s conclusion that the medical records fail to suggest Mr. Spriggs’s “inability to testify credibly at trial.” Verdict, R. 73 (#517-18). Additional support for this conclusion is offered simply by the fact that the district court is best placed to observe the credibility of a witness, with this case being no exception. Here, the court was able to judge in person Mr. Spriggs’s “behavior . . . upon the witness stand,” which included his “manner of testifying” and the “accuracy of [his] memory.” Dunn Appraisal Co. v. Honeywell Info. Sys. Inc., 687 F.2d 877, 881-82 (6th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted). Therefore, in our deferential review of the district court’s findings here, we deem that the court’s credibility determination was not clearly erroneous. No. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 14 2. Aggravated Identity Theft Charges (Counts 2 and 3): Factual Findings & Evidentiary Sufficiency Counts 2 and 3, which charged Vance with aggravated identity theft under § 1028A, require that the government show Vance (1) knowingly used, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person; and (2) used that means of identification during and in relation to an enumerated predicate felony. 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Predicate felonies under § 1028A(c)(5) include “any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud).” Relevant to this case, chapter 63 includes the bank-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344. a. Vance’s Use of Mr. Spriggs’s Identity The central basis relied upon by the government to show Vance’s aggravated-identitytheft conviction under count 3 was his use of his great-grandfather’s social security number at Huntington Bank to open a checking account and then apply for a loan. The district court appropriately recognized the value of this evidence, and ultimately agreed that “sufficient circumstantial evidence” demonstrated that “it was [Vance] . . . who submitted [the Huntington Bank] loan application by using Mr. Spriggs’ Social Security number” in the application. Verdict, R. 73 (#521). Despite Vance’s claims to the contrary, the district court’s finding as to the “identity” element was not inadequate. Rather, the district court accurately referenced the circumstantial evidence provided by the government to support this conclusion. This evidence included: (1) that the I.P. address used to request the loan was registered to Vance’s mother; and (2) that Vance had recently opened a checking account at Huntington Bank by way of a paper application, in which he used Mr. Spriggs’s social security number. Collectively, these findings are sufficient for our court to engage in “meaningful appellate review.” Zack, 291 F.3d at 412 (citing Grover Hill Grain Co., 728 F.2d at 792–93). Our review finds sufficient evidence to support the court’s determination that it was Vance—and not someone “in Hong Kong,” Trial, R. 77 (#640)—who applied for the Huntington Bank loan online in his great-grandfather’s name. Foremost to the government’s case, was the fact that the loan application shared several significant consistencies with the application Vance No. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 15 had submitted to Huntington Bank in person a few days earlier. Namely, both applications listed Vance’s name as the applicant, along with his address, email address, phone number and date of birth; yet, both applications listed Mr. Spriggs’s social security number in the relevant social security number boxes. Gov’t Ex. 5g; Trial, R. 77 (#634-37); Verdict, R. 73 (#521-22); compare Gov’t Ex. 5a (account application), with 5g (loan application). The documented evidence that Vance had previously submitted an online loan application at U.S. Bank also supports the likelihood that he submitted the subsequent Huntington Bank application. In fact, it is very unlikely that Mr. Spriggs took out this loan, given that, as he testified at trial, he did not like to take out loans, nor did he like to owe people money. It seems equally unlikely that this 91-year-old man or his 86-year-old wife would be applying for loans via the internet. Thus, we turn to Vance, who not only knew Mr. Spriggs’s social security number, but had an established history of conducting online transactions using his great-grandfather’s personal information (including a history of attempting to obtain loans in Mr. Spriggs’s name, using the latter’s personal information). In addition, Vance was found with a collection of documents belonging to his great-grandparents in his car (some of which had Mr. Spriggs’s social security number listed). Collectively, this evidence supports the district court’s finding that it was Vance who applied for the Huntington Bank loan. The last piece of evidence supporting the district court’s finding that Vance submitted the loan application is the fact that the I.P. address used in connection with the online loan application belonged to his mother. Vance does not dispute that this I.P. address was hers, and he does not argue that his mother applied for the loan. The I.P. address thus points to Vance as the one who submitted the application. Nonetheless, he continues to insist that it was an identity thief “in Hong Kong” who may have made the submission. Trial, R. 77 (#640). The district court had sufficient basis to reject Vance’s story. As the district court noted, “it would have been very odd for someone else [other than Vance]” to apply for the Huntington loan via the online application form. Verdict, R. 73 (#521-22). Vance also asserts in passing that the government’s evidence in relation to the identity element is insufficient because it failed to be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901. However, this argument is waived, given that Vance neither objected to the evidence at trial, nor No. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 16 does he even properly raise an evidentiary claim on appeal. See United States v. Brown, 819 F.3d 800, 829 (6th Cir. 2016) (stating that arguments on appeal that are “unaccompanied by any legal support or developed argumentation” are deemed waived). b. “During and in Relation to a Predicate Attempted Bank Fraud” In declaring its verdict and factual findings as to count 3, the district court explained that Vance had committed aggravated identity theft “during and in relation to a bank fraud violation, the bank fraud being the attempted bank fraud involving the Huntington Bank.” Verdict, R. 73 (#520). The court also found “that [Vance] did attempt to commit bank fraud and that he used the means of identification of another person during and in relation to that attempted bank fraud.” Id. (#522). Vance advances two arguments to challenge the adequacy of these findings, neither of which is persuasive. First, Vance challenges the adequacy of the findings based on the district court’s statement that Vance’s conduct occurred in relation to “attempted bank fraud,” as opposed to the court’s explicitly citing the bank-fraud statute on which it was relying. Br. at 46. This argument is misplaced. Subsection (c)(5) of 1028A refers to only one bank-fraud violation in chapter 63 as a predicate offense (defining the predicate felonies as including “any provision contained in chapter 63 (relating to mail, bank, and wire fraud)”). That enumerated bank-fraud violation is 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Therefore, it is sufficiently clear the bank-fraud violation to which the district court referred when it wrote “attempted bank fraud” See Verdict, R. 73 (#520). Second, Vance argues that the government presented no proof that Huntington Bank constitutes a requisite “financial institution,” under the bank-fraud statute, § 1344. Again, his argument is misplaced. Under 18 U.S.C. § 20(1), a “financial institution” is defined as “an insured depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act”). In turn, section 3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act provides that “[t]he term ‘insured depository institution’ means any bank or savings association the deposits of which are insured by the [FDIC] pursuant to this chapter.” 12 U.S.C. § 1813(c)(2). Therefore, because the government submitted undisputed documentary evidence showing that Huntington Bank was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), see Gov’t Ex. 5c at 1 No. 19-5160 United States v. Vance Page 17 (“Huntington National Bank is a Member FDIC.”), there was sufficient proof for the district court to find that Huntington Bank constitutes a “financial institution” under § 1344.