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

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Teadt contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of mail fraud, as there was no evidence that he knowingly joined a scheme to defraud Wood County. Ordinarily, when the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were satisfied. United States v. Jones, 102 F.3d 804, 807 (6th Cir. 1996). To preserve this challenge for appeal, however, the defendant must not only make a motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the government’s case-in-chief, but must also renew the motion after the close of the evidence. United States v. Price, 134 F.3d 340, 350 (6th Cir. 1998). Because Teadt failed to renew his motion, we review it only for a manifest miscarriage of justice, which exists only when “the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” United States v. Roberge, 565 F.3d 1005, 1008 (6th Cir. 2009). To find Teadt guilty of mail fraud, the jury had to conclude, by a preponderance of the evidence, that each of the following three elements had been proven: “(1) a scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) use of mails in furtherance of the scheme; and (3) intent to deprive a victim of money or property.” United States v. Turner, 465 F.3d 667, 680 (6th Cir. 2006). Teadt disputes only the third element, relying on his testimony that he had nothing to do with Huebner’s 6 Case Nos. 14-3995/14-4124/14-4125/15-3014/15-3015, United States v. Teadt, et al. forwarding of the fraudulent documents to Wood County. Further, he claims that he did not personally obtain any funds. Teadt also testified that he believed he was going to be terminated from his job at S.S. White, so he actually would be unemployed sometime in the near future. His plan was to take a job with Huebner’s business if the funding from Wood County came through. Teadt’s testimony gives rise to a reasonable inference that he intended to deprive Wood County of funds. When Teadt completed the paperwork for the Wood County HIRE Program, he lied about being unemployed. His testimony suggests that he believed his future employment with Huebner’s business was dependent upon funding from Wood County. There is no requirement that Teadt personally received the funds. Based on the foregoing, the record is not devoid of evidence pointing to Teadt’s guilt.
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.
Emmenecker contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to convict him of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349. At the close of the government’s evidence, Emmenecker made a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a) for a judgment of acquittal. The district court opted to reserve decision pursuant to Rule 29(b), ultimately denying the motion on May 15, 2014. Emmenecker did not renew the motion but contends that he was not required to, since the district court’s ruling on his initial motion came after all of his evidence was in. While a defendant might not be required to take any additional steps when a district court has reserved its ruling until after the close of all the evidence, see United States v. Wagner, 382 F.3d 598, 611 n.2 (6th Cir. 2004), that is not what occurred in this case. Emmenecker did not present further evidence after the court’s May 15 ruling, but the other defendants presented numerous witnesses on May 16, 2014. While some of that day’s testimony focused on structuring, with which Emmenecker was not charged, other testimony involved the overall dinar scheme. Since Emmenecker did not renew his Rule 29 motion after the close of proof, our review is limited to determining whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice. See Price, 134 F.3d at 350. Emmenecker claims that he simply moderated the group’s weekly conference calls because it provided some exposure for himself and Xango, the health drink he was selling. Other than that, he contends, he profited nothing. He testified that he and Huebner had been friends for approximately 50 years and that he had purchased over $20,000 in dinars himself. He further testified that he was an experienced networker and that he appeared on the weekly call-in shows, sharing promotional information that he had heard on previous calls and had seen “written over 9 Case Nos. 14-3995/14-4124/14-4125/15-3014/15-3015, United States v. Teadt, et al. and over again” in various sources found in his own research. Emmenecker maintains that, throughout the scheme, he had no reason to doubt the truth of any of the claims the group made about dinars. After the time that Emmenecker stated that he learned the truth about Coenen’s deceptions, however, the two continued to appear on call-in shows together. Emmenecker conceded that, by that time, he knew that Coenen was a “bad guy.” The jury could have reasonably disbelieved Emmenecker’s claims regarding his sincere beliefs about dinars. Emmenecker concedes that he continued to participate in the weekly calls with Coenen after he knew that Huebner informed the FBI that he suspected Coenen of malfeasance. Emmenecker also testified that in 2010, a concerned client sent him links to websites warning the public that the impending “revaluation” of the dinar was a scam. And while Emmenecker contends that his own misrepresentations (e.g., Executive Order 13303 and the Overseas Investment Protection Act) were immaterial, reasonable individuals could have relied on those representations in deciding whether to purchase dinars. In fact, some of the dinar purchasers who testified at trial stated that they did rely on these types of representations in making their decisions. Accordingly, the record is not devoid of evidence to sustain Emmenecker’s convictions for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.