Opinion ID: 62915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Conner argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We review de novo whether a rational trier of fact, after considering all the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the verdict, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Harris. [1]
The superseding indictment charged all five defendants with conspiring to use unauthorized access devices with the intent to defraud. To prove a conspiracy, the Government must show (1) an agreement between two or more persons to pursue an unlawful objective; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the unlawful objective and voluntary agreement to join the conspiracy; and (3) an overt act by one or more of the members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy. United States v. Williams. [2] Conner argues that there was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy because the alleged co-conspirators shared only a technique; they were not members of a conspiracy. He points to United States v. Gutierrez-Farias, where we held that the Government must prove that each conspirator knew of, intended to join, and participated in the conspiracy. [3] But the evidence does not support Conner's theory. It is true that the conspiracy involved the sharing of a technique for how to use business accounts without authorization, but the participants also assisted each other in practicing the scheme. The evidence shows that Hester, Whatley, and Pollock shared account information with each other. In fact, there is evidence that Beery and Pollock both used the same fraudulent Sam's Club card. Because Pollock was jittery and nervous about committing the scheme, Hester actually set up an account for Pollock to use. The above shows that Pollock and Whatley were involved in something more than the simple sharing of a technique, and there is overwhelming evidence that Hester, Beery, and Conner were involved in a prototypical conspiracy. They obtained the information together that enabled the conspiracy ( e.g., purchasing fake IDs); they committed the fraud together; they shared information about how to successfully perpetrate the fraud; and they coordinated selling the fraudulently obtained goods. Conner presents other challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence for the access-device fraud conspiracy. These arguments fail because the Government demonstrated by sufficient evidence that during multiple one-year time periods Conner conspired to use unauthorized access devices and/or to sell the proceeds derived therefrom. See 18 U.S.C. § 1029.
Conner alleges that there was insufficient evidence for his mail fraud conviction. His first argument is that the Government did not show a scheme to defraud, an element of the mail fraud offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 1341, because the Government failed to show that he engaged in the access-device conspiracy. We disagree with Conner's argument because there was sufficient evidence of the access-device conspiracy, as discussed above. Conner also argues that the Government's evidence was insufficient because during summation it abandoned its claim that the scheme to defraud employed false material representations, another element of the mail fraud offense. See id. This argument is without merit because during summation the Government said the scheme involved fraudulently obtaining items using unauthorized access devices and that Conner offered the stolen tools as his to sell and averred that he was a legitimate seller, all false representations. Finally, Conner argues that the Government failed to establish the provenance of the drill kit that was mailed to Agent Dooher; specifically, that it was one of the tool kits Hester obtained by fraud during his trip with Conner to Florida. In fact, there was overwhelming evidence that tied the drill kit sold to Agent Dooher as an item obtained by Conner and Hester during the Florida trip. The evidence came from Hester's testimony, as well as corroboration from the owner of the place from where the drill kit was shipped.