Opinion ID: 4526662
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Affects Interstate Commerce”

Text: 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conviction, see Scartz, 838 F.2d at 879; see also United States v. Drummond, 255 F. App’x 60, 64-65 (6th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (concluding that defendant’s possession of credit card numbers issued by foreign and interstate banks was sufficient evidence to support the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).