Opinion ID: 2735596
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Variance/Sufficiency of the Evidence2

Text: The parties offer diametrically opposed readings of § 513(a). Relying on one of many alternative dictionary definitions, Powell asserts the term “of” necessarily connotes ownership. Further relying on cases setting out Colorado state law, Powell asserts only the payor and payee of a check have an ownership interest therein prior to negotiation. For its part, the government asserts the term “of” does not connote ownership but, instead, only a relevant connection to the forged check. The government further alleges that each of the circuits to have 2 As both Powell and the government recognize, the validity of both his variance and sufficiency arguments is dependent on his assertion a check can only be “of” its payor and payee. Appellee Answer Br. at 11; Appellant Reply Br. at 3 n.2. We agree with the parties’ assessments. Because the issues are analytically indistinct, this court treats them as such. -9- considered the question has concluded a forged check is “of” both the drawee bank and the depository bank. Having reviewed the relevant statutory language and decisions from other circuits, this court concludes the government and Powell are each half right: the government is correct in arguing a forged check is “of” the drawee bank; Powell is correct in arguing a forged check is not, during its possession or utterance, “of” the bank into which it is eventually deposited. Each circuit that has considered the question whether a forged check can be simultaneously “of” the payor and “of” the drawee bank has answered the question in the affirmative. United States v. Lee, 439 F.3d 381, 385 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Hanson, 132 F. App’x 981, 982-83 (3d Cir. 2005) (unpublished); United States v. Kellum, 119 F. App’x 32, 34 (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished); United States v. Wade, 266 F.3d 574, 581-82 (6th Cir. 2001); United States v. Jackson, 155 F.3d 942, 946 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Chappell, 6 F.3d 1095, 1099 (5th Cir. 1993). In this court’s view, the uniform holdings in this regard are entirely consistent with the common usage of the term “of” as connoting a meaningful and relevant connection. Black’s Law Dictionary 1080 (6th ed. 1990) (defining “of” to mean, inter alia, “[a]ssociated with or connected with”); Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1565 (1993) (defining “of” to mean, inter alia, “a function word to indicate the place or thing from which anything moves, comes, goes, or is directed or impelled”). While it is certainly true both of these dictionaries indicate, as noted by Powell, that “of” can -10- mean ownership, there is nothing to indicate the definition advanced by Powell is the preferred definition. Nor, more importantly, can Powell offer any basis for asserting a particular aspect of § 513(a) compels the restrictive interpretation he advances on appeal. 3 The analysis set out in the opinions cited above is far more convincing than the construction of the term “of” advanced by Powell. This court, therefore, joins the unanimous list of courts concluding the government can prove a forged check is “of” an organization affecting interstate commerce by presenting evidence the check is drawn on a federally insured bank. Cf. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1521 (10th Cir. 1991) (“Splitting the circuits always is something we approach with trepidation.”). 4 3 Instead, interpreting “of” as the equivalent of ownership could do substantial damage to other portions of § 513(a). Although the instant case deals exclusively with “forged” securities, § 513(a) also criminalizes the making, uttering, or possession of “counterfeited” securities “of an organization” with intent to deceive a “person, organization, or government.” The term counterfeited “means a document that purports to be genuine but is not, because it has been falsely made or manufactured in its entirety.” 18 U.S.C. § 513(c)(1); cf. id. § 513(c)(2) (defining forged to mean “a document that purports to be genuine but is not because it has been falsely altered, completed, signed, or endorsed, or contains a false addition thereto or insertion therein, or is a combination of parts of two or more genuine documents”). If “of” equates to ownership, the creation of a wholly false check purporting to be drawn on a real federally insured bank would not fall within the rubric of § 513(a). Courts have, however, uniformly concluded such conduct falls within the contours of § 513(a). United States v. Brooks, 394 F. App’x 953, 954-55 (3d Cir. 2010) (unpublished); United States v. Robinson, 318 F. App’x 280, 284 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished); United States v. Dumonde, 190 F. App’x 788, 791-92 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished); United States v. Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331, 338-39 (6th Cir. 1998). 4 Powell is incorrect in arguing the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States (continued...) -11- Alternatively, this court has no difficulty concluding the checks at issue were not “of” the banks into which they were eventually deposited. In support of its argument to the contrary, the government simply asserts “Powell concedes [every court to consider his argument has rejected it], noting ‘five circuit courts of appeal have held that a check subsequently forged can be “of” a drawee or depository bank for § 513(a) purposes.’” Appellee Answer Br. at 11 (quoting Appellant Opening Br. at 11). At oral argument, however, the government acknowledged no court has so held. 5 In fact, as far as this court can tell, no court has ever addressed whether a forged check can be “of” a depository bank. In resolving this question then, this court applies the definition of “of” set out above 4 (...continued) v. Reasor, 418 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2005), supports his assertion “of” means ownership. Reasor dealt with a very narrow indictment alleging the defendant forged checks of a specific entity (a church). Id. at 469-70. On appeal, the defendant argued the church did not meet the definition of “organization” set out in § 513(c)(4). Id. at 470. The government did not attempt to defend the convictions on the basis the church qualified as an “organization” but, instead, argued the checks were “of” the drawee bank. Id. at 474. Given the narrowness of the indictment, the Fifth Circuit concluded the government’s newly raised argument would work an independently reversible constructive amendment of the indictment. Id. at 474-77. In so ruling, the Fifth Circuit was careful to note its decision was fully consistent with United States v. Chappell, 6 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 1993), which had held, on the merits, that a forged check could be “of” the drawee bank. Reasor, 418 F.3d at 476-77. As set out above, the indictment in this case, like the indictment in Chappell, is relatively broad, allowing the government to prove its case by demonstrating the forged checks are “of” any federally insured bank operating in interstate commerce. 5 Given the concession referenced in Powell’s brief, it is difficult to blame the government for asserting five circuits have held a check can be “of” a depository bank. Powell’s concession does not, however, make the assertion true. -12- and asks whether there is a relevant and meaningful connection between a forged check and the bank into which it is eventually deposited during the time that check is possessed or uttered. 18 U.S.C. § 513(a) (making it a criminal act to make, utter, or possess a forged check “of” an organization). There is simply no linguistic doubt the statute requires that the making, utterance, or possession of a forged check temporally coincide with that check’s relationship to the relevant organization. It is quite easy to see a meaningful contemporaneous connection between a forged check and the bank upon which it is drawn. For example, § 513(a) criminalizes possession of a forged check without regard to whether it is ever uttered. In that circumstance, possession of the forged check coincides at all points in time with its connection to the drawee bank. There are, however, a multitude of organizations to which such a check can thereafter be presented. It is impossible to assert such a check, before its deposit, is ever of a depository bank. To this, the government responds that each of the checks at issue here was eventually uttered and, once uttered, the necessary connection came into existence. The problem with this assertion is the government points to no authority supporting the proposition a depository bank’s interest in a forged check coincides with the check’s utterance, rather than following immediately after the utterance. Nor could this court find any such authority. Absent factual or legal support for the proposition a depository bank’s interest in a forged check -13- coincides with its utterance, it is simply impossible to say Powell possessed or uttered a check “of” a depository bank, even the bank into which it was eventually deposited. 6
Having concluded a forged check is “of” a drawee bank but not “of” a depository bank, this court concludes there was no error as to Counts 13 and 20. As Powell concedes, Appellant Opening Br. at 16, the government presented evidence at trial demonstrating Wells Fargo operates in interstate commerce. Powell did not contest this issue at trial. The evidence unequivocally establishes the checks underlying Counts 13 and 20 were drawn on Wells Fargo. The forged checks underlying these counts were submitted to the jury as Government’s Exhibits 126 and 153. When coupled with the fact Powell does not challenge on appeal any element of these counts other than the of-an-organization element, and the conclusion the indictment properly stated that element broadly enough to 6 The government’s reading of § 513(a) would inject an unwarranted linguistic anomaly into the statute. Section 513(a) criminalizes, inter alia, the utterance of a forged check “of an organization,” “with intent to deceive another person, organization, or government.” Under the government’s reading of § 513(a), a depository bank could fill both sides of the statute’s equation. That is, a check drawn on a stranger bank (i.e., not the depository bank) could be both “of” the depository bank and uttered with intent to deceive that same depository bank (or its representatives). In our view, such an interpretation stretches § 513(a) well past the boundaries of plain meaning. -14- include proof the forged checks were “of” any federally insured bank, 7 Powell’s variance and sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges to Counts 13 and 20 necessarily fail. That being the case the remainder of this court’s plain-error analysis does not apply to Counts 13 and 20. This court reaches a contrary conclusion as to the remaining counts. As to Counts 6, 8, 8 15, 17, 22, 24, 26, and 28, there is absolutely no evidence in the record that any of the forged checks’ payors, payees, or drawee banks are organizations operating in interstate commerce. Thus, there is no evidence in the record to support § 513(a)’s of-an-organization element as to any of these counts. Count 10 presents a closer question. That count is one of only two counts supported by more than one check. The first check supporting Count 10 is drawn on Wells Fargo. This check was submitted to the jury as Government’s Exhibit 106. If it were standing alone, this court would have no difficulty concluding Count 10 was supported by sufficient evidence and was consistent with the broad indictment. The second check underlying Count 10, however, is a United States Treasury check made out to an individual as payee. 9 This check was submitted to 7 See supra n.4. 8 See supra n.1. 9 Powell seems to think this check would ordinarily fit within the terms of § 513(a) had the government not limited the indictment to organizations, because it is a check of a “government.” Appellant Opening Br. at 18. This is incorrect. While it is certainly true that the United States can prove the intent-to-deceive (continued...) -15- the jury as Government’s Exhibit 108. Because the record does not definitively reveal that the jury relied exclusively on the check set out in Government’s Exhibit 106 in finding Powell guilty of Count 10, this court concludes Powell’s conviction on that count amounts to error. This court’s conclusion that Powell’s conviction on Count 10 amounts to error is supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 59 (1991). In Griffin, the Court confronted the question whether, “in a federal prosecution, a general guilty verdict on a multiple-object conspiracy charge must be set aside if the evidence is inadequate to support conviction as to one of the objects.” Id. at 47. In answering that question in the negative, the Court distinguished between situations where one theory underlying a multitheory count of conviction is factually insufficient and situations where one theory underlying a multi-theory count of conviction is plagued by legal error: Jurors are not generally equipped to determine whether a particular theory of conviction submitted to them is contrary to law—whether, for example, the action in question is protected by the Constitution, is time barred, or fails to come within the statutory definition of the crime. When, therefore, jurors have been left the option of relying upon a legally inadequate theory, there is no reason to think that their own intelligence and expertise will save them from that error. Quite the opposite is true, however, when they have been left the option of 9 (...continued) element of § 513(a) by proving an intent to deceive a “government,” the only securities at issue in § 513(a) are securities of an “organization” or “a State or a political subdivision thereof.” 18 U.S.C. § 513(a), (c)(5). Criminal acts relating to counterfeited or forged securities of the United States are set out at 18 U.S.C. §§ 470 to 477. -16- relying upon a factually inadequate theory, since jurors are well equipped to analyze the evidence . . . . Id. at 59. In the case at hand, the jury was presented with two avenues for convicting on Count 10: (1) one entirely proper avenue supported by sufficient evidence (i.e., Government’s Exhibit 106); and (2) one avenue that “fails to come within the statutory definition of the crime” 10 (i.e., Government’s Exhibit 108). This is exactly the situation described as error in the passage from Griffin quoted above.
This court has made clear that a conviction in the absence of sufficient evidence constitutes error that is plain. Goode, 483 F.3d at 681. As the government notes, however, there is a complication in this case: any determination that the evidence in this case is insufficient turns entirely on a novel question of statutory interpretation. This court need not decide whether the plainness of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence error depends on the context in which that error arises; the error here is plain even if we focus our analysis solely on the interpretation of § 513(a). Normally, the plain error standard cannot be satisfied unless the claimed error is contrary to well-settled law, “that is, to the current law of the Supreme Court or the Tenth Circuit.” United States v. Wardell, 591 F.3d 1279, 1298 (10th 10 Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 59 (1991). -17- Cir. 2009). The absence of such precedent will not, however, prevent the conclusion an error is plain when statutory language is clear and obvious. United States v. Ruiz-Gea, 340 F.3d 1181, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003). For those reasons set out above, this court concludes the plain language of § 513(a) makes clear a forged check is not “of” a depository bank during its possession or utterance. That being the case, the lack of evidence supporting all convictions (but Counts 13 and 20) is plain. Likewise, given Griffin was decided thirty-three years ago, the error as to Count 10 identified above is likewise plain.
This court’s decision in Goode makes clear the lack of sufficient evidence “clearly prejudice[s] the defendant.” 483 F.3d at 681-82 & 681 n.1. Thus, Powell has established the error recognized above affects his substantial rights as to Counts 6, 8, 15, 17, 22, 24, 26, and 28. It is likewise clear, at least under binding Tenth Circuit precedent, that the error associated with Count 10 affects Powell’s substantial rights. Compare United States v. McKye, 734 F.3d 1104, 1110 n.6 (10th Cir. 2013) (applying the Griffin line of cases and holding that “when there is legal error as to one basis for finding an element, the submission of an alternative theory for making that finding cannot sustain the verdict unless it is possible to determine the verdict rested on the valid ground” (quotation omitted)), with id. at 1111-14 (Briscoe, C.J., concurring) (expressing doubt as to -18- the validity of the prejudice analysis set out in the majority opinion, but agreeing panel was bound by Tenth Circuit precedent to apply that analysis).
Under the fourth prong of plain-error review, a court may exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. GonzalezHuerta, 403 F.3d 727, 736 (10th Cir. 2005) (en banc). Under that standard, an appellant must demonstrate failure to notice the error would result in a “miscarriage of justice.” Id.; Goode, 483 F.3d at 682. Powell has undoubtedly satisfied his burden as to Counts 6, 8, 15, 17, 22, 24, 26, and 28. As to each of these counts, there is absolutely no evidence in the record that any of the forged checks’ payors, payees, or drawee banks is an organization operating in interstate commerce. Powell has failed, however, to demonstrate the failure to set aside his conviction on Count 10 would amount to a miscarriage of justice. As noted above, Powell’s conviction on Count 10 is fully and overwhelmingly supported by Government’s Exhibit 106. This court has previously concluded a remarkably similar situation was not sufficient to grant relief under the fourth prong of plain error review. Goode, 483 F.3d 682. In Goode, the defendant was indicted on one count of being a felon unlawfully in possession of a firearm. Id. at 678. At trial, the government presented uncontradicted testimony the firearm traveled in foreign -19- commerce. Id. at 678-79. In its elemental jury instruction, however, the district court instructed the jury that to convict it must find the firearm traveled in interstate commerce. Id. On appeal, Goode raised an unpreserved claim of insufficient evidence. Id. at 680-81. This court denied relief, concluding as follows: [W]e deny relief because this is one of those rare cases in which the defendant’s insufficient-evidence claim fails on the fourth element. . . . There was no miscarriage of justice. Mr. Goode seeks to set aside his conviction on the ground that the government failed to prove that his firearm had traveled in interstate commerce. Yet it is a certainty that the firearm had traveled in foreign commerce, so that Mr. Goode’s possession was “in or affecting commerce,” as charged in the indictment. See United States v. Wallace, 889 F.2d 580, 583 (5th Cir. 1989) (“[S]ection 922(g) reaches . . . those firearms that traveled in interstate or foreign commerce.”). The alleged insufficiency of the evidence could have been quickly cured by amending the instruction if Mr. Goode had challenged at trial the insufficiency he raises on appeal. Id. at 682 (quotations omitted). Furthermore, given his uncompromising insistence on appeal that a forged check can only be “of” its payor and payee for purposes of § 513(a), Powell does not even address how this court should treat Count 10 if we reject his all-or-nothing approach to the statute. Thus, he has given this court no reason to assume the jury did not base its guilty verdict on Count 10, at least in part, on the evidence associated with Government’s Exhibit 106. In particular, Powell has not identified anything particular about his defense of Count 10 that makes it possible, let alone likely, the jury had any reason to doubt the government’s proof as to Exhibit 106. After all, the jury convicted -20- Powell on each and every count set out in the indictment, rejecting his theory at trial that he was unaware the checks were stolen or forged. With this in mind, it is worth restating that the burden is on Powell to demonstrate a manifest injustice. Gonzalez-Huerta, 403 F.3d at 736. This court will not manufacture such arguments on Powell’s behalf. McKissick v. Yuen, 618 F.3d 1177, 1189-90 (10th Cir. 2010).