Opinion ID: 4690769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acevedo’s Convictions

Text: Acevedo argues that the district court (1) abused its discretion in admitting evidence of similar uncharged incidents under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) and (2) erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree.
Acevedo argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting, under Rule 404(b), evidence of two uncharged prior incidents. He contends that the government failed to establish he committed the uncharged acts, that the acts were not relevant to establish his identity, and that the evidence was unduly prejudicial. We disagree. Under Rule 404(b), “[e]vidence of any other crime, wrong, or act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1). Such evidence may be admissible for another purpose, “such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). For evidence of other crimes or acts to be admissible under Rule 404(b), “(1) it must be relevant to an 11 USCA11 Case: 19-12208 Date Filed: 05/27/2021 Page: 12 of 22 issue other than defendant’s character; (2) there must be sufficient proof to enable a jury to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the act(s) in question; and (3) the probative value of the evidence cannot be substantially outweighed by undue prejudice, and the evidence must satisfy [Fed. R. Evid.] 403.” United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2007). The test for whether Rule 404(b) evidence should be admitted varies depending on the purpose for which it is offered. United States v. Phaknikone, 605 F.3d 1099, 1108 (11th Cir. 2010). Evidence offered to prove identity must satisfy a “particularly stringent analysis.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). When extrinsic evidence is offered to prove identity, the “crucial consideration” is the similarity between the charged crime and the prior act. United States v. Miller, 959 F.2d 1535, 1539 (11th Cir. 1992). “The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused. In other words, the evidence must demonstrate a modus operandi.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “The extrinsic act must be a signature crime, and the defendant must have used a modus operandi that is uniquely his.” Phaknikone, 605 F.3d at 1108 (internal quotation marks omitted). The government must, therefore, show more than simply that the defendant has at other times committed the same “commonplace variety of criminal act.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 USCA11 Case: 19-12208 Date Filed: 05/27/2021 Page: 13 of 22 Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 404(b) evidence of the two prior incidents at the Valero and Chevron stations because the evidence was relevant to prove Acevedo’s identity and modus operandi. The two uncharged acts were strikingly similar to the incidents charged in the indictment. They both occurred within a year of the first incident charged in the indictment and within the same geographic area. What is more, the first uncharged incident was essentially identical to the two charged acts—a credit card skimmer was found inside a gas pump and Acevedo’s fingerprint was found on the pump’s broken seal. As to the second uncharged incident, Acevedo was identified by a witness as he was attempting to open a gas pump. The scheme marks Acevedo’s “handiwork” as it does not appear to be so “commonplace” such that anyone could have committed the uncharged acts. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, any potential prejudice caused by admitting this evidence was mitigated by the district court’s limiting instruction to the jury. Edouard, 485 F.3d at 1346.
Acevedo contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the government failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He argues that the government presented no evidence to establish he placed or had knowledge that someone else placed the skimmers inside the gas pumps and that the fingerprint evidence only proved that he touched 13 USCA11 Case: 19-12208 Date Filed: 05/27/2021 Page: 14 of 22 the components of the skimmers at some point. We reject Acevedo’s arguments. As noted, we review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict. Green, 981 F.3d at 960. A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence. United States v. Godwin, 765 F.3d 1306, 1320 (11th Cir. 2014). “It is not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt.” United States v. Young, 906 F.2d 615, 618 (11th Cir. 1990). Thus, we may not overturn a jury’s verdict “if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1297 (11th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the test for sufficiency of evidence is “identical regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial,” and no distinction is made between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. United States v. Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278, 1303 (11th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, where the government relies on circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences, and not mere speculation, must support the jury’s verdict. Id. Applying this standard, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Acevedo’s convictions. 14 USCA11 Case: 19-12208 Date Filed: 05/27/2021 Page: 15 of 22 To sustain a conviction for Counts One and Three, the government was required to show that Acevedo knowingly and with intent to defraud possessed fifteen or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices. 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). To convict Acevedo of Counts Two and Four, the government had to establish that he knowingly possessed device-making equipment with the intent to defraud. Id. § 1029(a)(4). And to sustain a conviction for Counts Five and Six, the government was required to prove that Acevedo knowingly transferred, possessed, or used the means of identification (including an access device) of another person, without lawful authority, during and in relation to a felony enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c). United States v. Presendieu, 880 F.3d 1228, 1240 (11th Cir. 2018); see also 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). Section 1028A(c) includes fraud in connection with access devices under §§ 1029(a)(3) and (a)(4) as enumerated felonies. 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c)(4). Guilty knowledge “may be inferred from circumstantial evidence[] and the surrounding circumstances may supply inferences of knowledge which adequately prove intent.” United States v. Perez, 698 F.2d 1168, 1170 (11th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks omitted). An “intent to defraud” involves an intent to “deceive or cheat, for the purpose of either causing some financial loss to another, or bringing about some financial gain to one’s self.” United States v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 1228, 1240 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). And 15 USCA11 Case: 19-12208 Date Filed: 05/27/2021 Page: 16 of 22 possession may be actual or constructive. United States v. Delva, 922 F.3d 1228, 1248 (11th Cir. 2019). “A person constructively possesses an item when he has knowledge of the thing possessed coupled with the ability to maintain control over it,” or when he “exercises ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, there was sufficient evidence to convict Acevedo on all six counts. The government presented evidence that Acevedo’s fingerprints were found on the two skimmers discovered at the Chevron station; the jury could thus reasonably conclude that he possessed the skimmers. See United States v. Tyler, 474 F.2d 1079, 1081 (5th Cir. 1973) (concluding that the jury was free to draw an inference of actual possession from the presence of defendant’s fingerprint on a check).4 The jury heard evidence that a witness saw Acevedo attempting to open a gas pump and then fleeing when told to stop. And based on Williams’s testimony that skimmers have no lawful purpose and are used to capture credit card information that passes through legitimate credit card readers, it was not unreasonable for the jury to infer that Acevedo possessed the skimmers with the intent to defraud. Further, because the skimmers could transmit the credit card information via 4 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981. 16 USCA11 Case: 19-12208 Date Filed: 05/27/2021 Page: 17 of 22 Bluetooth, the jury could also infer that Acevedo had access to the 93 account numbers captured by the skimmers. As to Acevedo’s conviction for aggravated identity theft, in addition to the evidence listed above, the government established that the skimmers found at the Chevron station stored a total of more than 30 account numbers, including accounts belonging to B.D. and J.D. The jury heard B.D. and J.D. testify that they had used their credit cards to buy gas at the Chevron station during the relevant period, their cards had not been lost or stolen, and they had never given Acevedo permission to possess their credit card accounts. It was therefore reasonable for the jury to infer that Acevedo unlawfully possessed B.D.’s and J.D.’s means of identification in relation to possessing unauthorized access devices and access device-making equipment. Viewing the above evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we cannot say the district court erred in denying Acevedo’s motion for judgment of acquittal. See Green, 981 F.3d at 960. We thus affirm Acevedo’s convictions on all counts.