Opinion ID: 1696
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: A district court’s jury instructions are “‘reviewed as a whole to determine whether they adequately inform the jury of relevant considerations and provide a basis in law for the jury to reach its decision.’” Innes v. Howell Corp., 76 F.3d 702, 714 (6th Cir. 1996) (quoting Beard v. -7- 7 No. 08-6135 United States v. Adkins Norweigian Caribbean Lines, 900 F.2d 71, 72 (6th Cir. 1990)). The judgment will be reversed “only if the instructions, viewed as a whole, were confusing, misleading and prejudicial.” United States v. Clark, 988 F.2d 1459, 1468 (6th Cir. 1993).
Adkins alleges that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the Pinkerton theory of liability with respect to Counts 3-6. The Pinkerton theory of liability is predicated on the idea that once a participant decides to join a conspiracy, he is responsible for any substantive offenses committed by his co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647 (1946). The district court instructed the jury pursuant to Pinkerton on Counts 3-6, regarding the substantive offenses underlying the conspiracy. Adkins contends that this instruction, viewed properly in context with all of the other instructions, confused or misled the jury. We disagree. In support of his contention, Adkins relies on United States v. Henning, 286 F.3d 914 (6th Cir. 2002), for the proposition that when a defendant is charged with both substantive crimes and a conspiracy, a Pinkerton instruction can effectively relieve the government of its burden of proof with regard to the substantive crimes. This reliance is misplaced. In Henning, after instructing the jury on the conspiracy charge, the district court instructed the jury on Pinkerton liability with respect to the substantive crimes charged. Henning, 286 F.3d at 920. The district court later reversed the conspiracy conviction, but did not consider the effect that reversal might have had on the substantive crime convictions: “it failed to consider that, pursuant to the Pinkerton instruction, the jury may have convicted Henning on the substantive counts only because they believed he was guilty of -8- 8 No. 08-6135 United States v. Adkins conspiracy.” Id. The Henning decision is inapposite here, where the conspiracy conviction was never disturbed. Even if the jury convicted on the substantive counts only because it found that Adkins was guilty on the conspiracy count, there was no error—that is the essence of Pinkerton liability, and the district court properly instructed the jury as such. Adkins’s contention that the jury may have only convicted him on the conspiracy charge due to the Pinkerton instruction is unpersuasive, given that the jury was instructed on the conspiracy charge first, and the Pinkerton instruction itself indicated that it only applied to Counts 3-6, which were the substantive crime charges. The jury instructions, viewed as a whole—considering the conspiracy instructions in conjunction with the Pinkerton instruction—were neither confusing nor misleading. On the contrary, they accurately and adequately informed the jury of the law.

An appellate court reviews a district court’s “denial of a Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence under the same standard as the district court.” United States v. Beddow, 957 F.2d 1330, 1334 (6th Cir. 1992). When confronted with a Rule 29 motion, a trial court “must consider all of the evidence in a light most favorable to the government and grant the motion when it appears to the Court that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” United States v. Adamo, 742 F.2d 927, 932 (6th Cir. 1984). All reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the government, and “[i]t is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Id. -9- 9 No. 08-6135 United States v. Adkins
Adkins alleges that the government failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he knew that the false social security number and personal information on the false driver’s license belonged to someone else, or that he knew that he did not have lawful authority to possess the identification. Consequently, Adkins contends, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal due to insufficient evidence on Counts 3 and 6, which both alleged aggravated identity theft. The district court rejected that claim, as do we. The statute under which Adkins was charged provides that “[w]hoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.” 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The court instructed the jury that the elements of the offense for Count 3 were: (1) the defendant knowingly possessed a means of identification of another person; (2) the defendant knew that the means of identification belonged to another person; (3) the defendant knew that he had no lawful authority to possess the means of identification; and (4) the defendant possessed the means of identification during and in relation to the crimes of possession of fraudulent identification documents and conspiracy to do the same. Similarly, the court instructed the jury that the elements of the offense for Count 6 were: (1) the defendant knowingly possessed a means of identification of another person; (2) the defendant knew that the means of identification belonged to another person; (3) the defendant knew that he had no lawful authority to possess the means of identification; and (4) the defendant possessed the means of identification during and in relation to the crime of wire -10- 1 No. 08-6135 United States v. Adkins fraud. As a threshold matter, we note that the district court properly instructed the jury on Counts 3 and 6. Adkins points the Court’s attention to Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 1886, 1894 (2009), in which the Supreme Court held that a conviction for aggravated identity theft must be supported by evidence “that the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another person.” The district court here included that element as the second element of the offense for Counts 3 and 6. The government produced evidence that Adkins had previously been arrested for using false identification, so a reasonable inference may be drawn that Adkins knew he had no lawful authority to possess a driver’s license in the name of George Hanna.1 Additionally, the government produced evidence that, upon being taken to the police station, Adkins discarded the false identification in the waste basket—further proof that he knew he did not have any authority to possess the license. It was also established at trial that, although Adkins was not personally involved in Patton’s purchase of credit reports from his contact at a mortgage company, he did know that Patton made such a purchase, and that the false identification Adkins used to make purchases was created by combining a picture of himself with information from the credit reports. Thus, a reasonable inference supporting the conviction may be drawn that he knew the false identification he was using belonged to someone else. As to the wire fraud, a copy of the George Hanna driver’s license taken at Reed’s Jewelry 1 Presumably, Adkins knew his own name, and that it was not “George Hanna.” -11- 1 No. 08-6135 United States v. Adkins Store on December 2, 2006, matched the George Hanna driver’s license that Adkins attempted to discard at the police station on December 12, 2006. The jury could reasonably infer that Adkins had been in possession of the license from December 2, 2006, to December 12, 2006, and that his possession was in connection with the wire fraud that occurred on December 2, 2006. In addition, while the actual wire transmission occurred on December 2, 2006, the government presented evidence, in the form of Patton’s testimony, that the fraud scheme continued until all three men were arrested on December 12, 2006. Thus, it would also be reasonable for the jury to infer that Adkins’s possession of the George Hanna license was in relation to the wire fraud. Because Adkins’s conviction on Counts 3 and 6 is supported by sufficient evidence in the record, his conviction is affirmed.

A district court’s sentencing decisions are reviewed under the advisory sentencing guidelines for abuse of discretion. United States v. Shor, 549 F.3d 1075, 1077 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007)). In particular, a district court’s decision regarding the minor participant reduction is given significant deference. United States v. Gabbard, 586 F.3d 1046, 1052 (6th Cir. 2009) (“While an independent review of the record might lead us to grant the minor participant reduction, the essentially factual nature of the district court’s determination requires us to give substantial deference to the sentencing court.”). Thus, a reviewing “‘court will not disturb the district court’s determination of a defendant’s role in the criminal activity unless it is clearly erroneous.’” United States v. Samuels, 308 F.3d 662, 672 (6th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. -12- 1 No. 08-6135 United States v. Adkins Williams, 940 F.2d 176, 180 (6th Cir. 1991)).
The United States Sentencing Guidelines permit a two offense level reduction “[i]f the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). A defendant “‘seeking a downward adjustment of a sentence otherwise required by the guidelines . . . has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence his or her entitlement to a reduction.’” United States v. Mahan, 190 F.3d 416, 425 (6th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Adu, 82 F.3d 119, 123 (6th Cir. 1996)). The two level reduction “applies to a defendant who is substantially less culpable than most other participants, but whose role could not be described as minimal.” Mahan, 190 F.3d at 426 (citing U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3). A defendant is not “automatically entitled to a minor participant reduction simply because [a co-conspirator] could have been deemed a more culpable participant than [the defendant].” United States v. Jackson, 55 F.3d 1219, 1225 (6th Cir. 1995). The district court’s decision not to grant Adkins the two level reduction was not clearly erroneous. The district court explained its decision as follows: The defendant is asking for a role adjustment because he submits he’s a minor participant in criminal activity. This role is appropriate when someone is less culpable than most of the other participants but his role could not be described as minimal. And as the defendant concedes, he bears the burden of proving he played a minor role. Here we have concerted activity where each person involved in the activity is responsible for all the actions of the others. The defendant’s role in this case was more than just driving a vehicle. When he was apprehended, he had some false identification on him. I don’t recall whether it was in just one name or multiple names. I also don’t recall whether there were credit cards on his person. But I do recall that there was a false identification document in his possession or that had recently been in his possession when he was stopped. -13- 1 No. 08-6135 United States v. Adkins The Court, in considering that the defendant bears the burden of proof on this issue, will deny the request. It is not at all evident, from the evidence that came in and the arguments, that the defendant is less culpable than most other participants, especially in this particular transaction where he was actually someone who actually made purchases, went in and made false statements. So the Court will deny that objection. The court considered the evidence presented and determined that, given Adkins’s role in making purchases with false identification documents and making false statements to store employees, he could not be considered a minor participant. By Adkins’s own admission, he wanted to play a larger role than Patton would allow due to his difficulty remembering what he was supposed to do and say while making purchases—a factor that counsels against awarding a minor participant reduction. See Gabbard, 586 F.3d at 1052 (affirming district court’s denial of reduction, “in light of [the defendant’s] attempt to increase his role in the conspiracy”). We see no clear error in the district court’s analysis, and we afford the court’s decision the proper deference by affirming it.