Opinion ID: 656502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence of One Conspiracy

Text: 23 The indictment charged that Mrs. Fuller, Mr. Fuller, Mrs. Dureke, Beatrice Azauka, Olusegun Abisogun, Olukayode Taiwo, Adeola Bamgboye, and unindicted co-conspirator Oluwole Oleyede engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the United States and to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (false statements), 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(D) (harboring aliens), 18 U.S.C. § 1622 (suborning perjury), and 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(B) (use of false social security numbers). The defendants argue that the government's proof did not show one overall conspiracy, but multiple conspiracies. They contend that the first conspiracy included all of the defendants and lasted from May 1990 until August 1990, when Mr. and Mrs. Fuller had a falling out with Mrs. Dureke and Oluwole Oleyede, and Mrs. Dureke and Oleyede left the conspiracy. At that time Mr. Fuller took over the functions previously performed by Mrs. Dureke and Oluwole Oleyede, which included the manufacture of fraudulent documents to support the applications. The defendants contend that these events show that a second conspiracy, which did not include Mrs. Dureke and Oluwole Oleyede, began in September 1990. Thus, they argue, the jury should have been instructed on multiple conspiracy theories and that the variance between the indictment and the proof at trial prejudiced the defense. 24 The jury instructions given at trial did, in fact, instruct the jury on the distinction between one conspiracy and multiple conspiracies, and the jurors were told that they must acquit any defendant who was not part of the single conspiracy charged in the indictment. Specifically, the jury was instructed: 25 You are further instructed with regard to the alleged conspiracy offense, that is Count 1, that proof of several separate conspiracies is not proof of the single overall conspiracy charged in the indictment, unless one of the several conspiracies which is proved is the single conspiracy which the indictment charges. 26 What you must do is determine whether the single conspiracy charged in the indictment existed between two or more conspirators. If you find that no such conspiracy existed, then you must acquit the defendants as to that charge, that is find them not guilty. 27 After you are satisfied that such a conspiracy existed, you must determine who were the members of it. If you find that a particular defendant is a member of another conspiracy, not the one charged in the indictment, then you cannot find that defendant guilty under Count 1. 28 In other words, to find a defendant guilty under Count 1, you must find that he or she was a member of the conspiracy charged in the indictment, and not some other separate conspiracy. 29 6 Trial Transcript at 258-59. There was no objection to the conspiracy charge and, in fact, counsel for Mrs. Fuller stated that she thought the district court did a good job on the conspiracy charge. 30 We have consistently held that whether one conspiracy or multiple conspiracies exist is a question of fact that is properly for the jury. E.g. United States v. Urbanik, 801 F.2d 692, 695 (4th Cir. 1986). Because the jury was properly instructed, we must affirm the finding of a single conspiracy unless the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the government, would not allow a reasonable jury so to find. Urbanik, 801 F.2d at 695. 31 We have determined that the conspirators have participated in a single conspiracy when there is one overall agreement or one general business venture. United States v. Leavis, 853 F.2d 215, 218 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Further, we have noted that the existence of a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies depends upon the overlap of key actors, methods, and goals. Leavis, 853 F.2d at 218 (citations omitted). Here, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as we must, we find that there is ample proof of a single conspiracy. The one general business venture was to charge aliens fees for assisting them in fraudulently obtaining immigration benefits. The key actor was Mrs. Fuller. Without her, the conspiracy would not have been able to go forward. In addition, the methods used, preparing fraudulent documents, charging the aliens fees, filing false applications with the INS, and coaching the aliens through the immigration hearing, were always the same. Further, the departure of Mrs. Dureke and Oluwole Oleyede did not create a new conspiracy. 32 Members of a conspiracy may drop out without disturbing the fact that the original conspiracy continues. See United States v. West, 877 F.2d 281, 289 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 869, and cert. denied, 493 U.S. 959 (1989), and cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1070 (1990); United States v. Crockett, 813 F.2d 1310, 1316-17 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 834 (1987) (adopting findings of district court); United States v. Dorta, 783 F.2d 1179, 1183 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 905 (1986). 33