Opinion ID: 2977803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Possession of Counterfeiting Implements

Text: Second, Turpin contends that she was entitled to acquittal on Count 33—possession of counterfeiting implements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 513(b)—because a date discrepancy between the indictment and the court’s factual findings renders her guilt factually impossible. That is, though the indictment alleged that Turpin possessed the implements on April 30, 2004, the district court’s findings of fact recites that the seizure occurred on May 20, 2003—a year earlier. Because no evidence questions the indictment’s correctness as to the seizure date, we see this as plainly a typographical error. -3- No. 07-3554 United States v. Turpin Because Turpin seeks acquittal on this count, the question is not whether the dates agree, but rather, does the record include sufficient evidence to support this count? United States v. Bashaw, 982 F.2d 168, 171 (6th Cir. 1992). “Even when a defendant is convicted after a bench trial, the test is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify the trial judge, as trier of facts, in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The record amply supports guilt here. Turpin raises another argument regarding a second scrivener’s error on the same count. She insists that the court’s use of the phrase “fraudulent identification documents. . . .” instead of “counterfeit securities” entitles her to acquittal. But again, the record amply supports her conviction on this count for possessing implements to make counterfeit securities, namely the stolen and cancelled checks, blank check paper, and check printing software found at Turpin’s residence. Cancelled, unsigned, and blank checks are implements for making counterfeit securities within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 513(b). See United States v. Wade, 266 F.3d 574, 584 (6th Cir. 2001) (unsigned checks); United States v. Pebworth, 112 F.3d 168, 169 (4th Cir. 1997) (blank checks); United States v. Holloman, 981 F.2d 690, 692 (3d Cir. 1992) (cancelled checks). Thus, while the district court’s written findings do not specifically support Count 33, the uncontroverted record supports Turpin’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. 513(b).