Opinion ID: 496778
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: final points

Text: 49 Appellant states that [t]he last overt act alleged against defendant Delgado was a Supplemental Police Report he submitted on March 17, 1980, which contained his investigation of this arson.... Appellant's Brief at 11. He then notes that the mailings did not occur until July and August 1980 and that a final police report intervened between these events. These allusions, which are not fully developed in appellant's brief, appear to be an attempt by appellant to claim that he did not further the actual substantive crimes alleged--the use of the mails to commit a fraud. This argument must fail since appellant participated in the only part of the venture in which his actions were needed--he wrote a report which formed the partial basis for MTIC's willingness to settle the claim. We recognize that partial participation is not enough; it must also be shown that appellant knew and intended to bring about the result. Hathaway, 534 F.2d at 399. This second requirement has been dealt with fully in section IV. 50 Appellant also argues that he has been found guilty by association--association with Hernandez and Martinez, and association with the corrupt officers who caused the final police report to be filed. This argument is without merit. Appellant admitted his friendship with Hernandez. As already noted, the jury could reasonably have found they were coconspirators. As for the link between appellant and the other officers, the government did not rely on this factor to prove its case. Based on the facts listed in the Conspiracy section, the jury could have found that Fate did not trap appellant--a hapless bystander in the wrong place at the wrong time--in its web; but rather, that appellant helped to weave a web designed to trap MTIC. 51 In sum, the government established more than mere presence. This is not a case where, on the basis of association alone, the jurors were asked 'to let their imaginations run rampant.'  United States v. Quejada-Zurique, 708 F.2d at 861 (citation omitted). 52 Appellant's arguments are smokescreens without fire. 53 Affirmed.