Opinion ID: 2736643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: facts

Text: Because Ronald is challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we will recite the facts in the light most compatible with the jury's verdict. See, e.g., United States v. Polanco, 634 F.3d 39, 40 (1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Troy, 618 F.3d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 2010). 1 Rather than risk reader confusion over the similar-sounding surnames, we will refer to the defendant as Ronald and his coconspirator as Samson. No disrespect is intended. -2-
Every wedding needs a planner--someone with experience who can tend to the details and guide the bride and groom over the hurdles of their most important day. Ronald is a nurse by profession, but for his friend Samson, he was a most capable wedding planner. A native of Uganda, Ronald emigrated to the United States in 1999 and was issued an Exchange Visitor Visa. In 2002, Ronald settled in California, where he married for the first time. The marriage ended in divorce in 2003, although the final decree was not issued until 2006. Ronald then moved to Maine and, as the ink dried on the decree, married for the second time. That marriage produced one child before ending in 2011. In 2007, Ronald had a brief affair with Alice May--a woman who played a bit part in his romantic history, but would assume a much larger role in this case. Presently, in what is perhaps a triumph of hope over experience, Ronald is married to his third wife, Cassandra Linton, with whom he has a second child. Ronald met Samson at a party at a friend's house. Like Ronald, Samson was a native of Uganda; unlike Ronald, Samson's permission to remain in the United States had expired. As an overstay, Samson had a problem; Ronald had the solution--Alice May. -3-
In the summer of 2008, May was, by her own account, not in a good place. She was doing a lot of drugs, alcohol, and, at that time . . . pretty much didn't care about her life. Although she testified that her memory of that time was not good, she recalled having several conversations with Ronald during which he would ask if [she] knew anybody that would marry somebody to get a green card or if [she] would. May initially declined, but Ronald persisted, raising the topic [p]retty much every time [they] talked. According to May, Ronald told her, Whoever would marry somebody for a green card would get money. The would-be bride finally succumbed to Ronald's importuning. On August 27, 2008, May signed a marriage certificate at Lewiston City Hall. She testified that she had no recollection of who was with her at the time, but Samson's signature appears on the certificate beside that of his bride.2 Five days later, May received $400 that Samson had wired to her through Western Union. On October 22, 2008, at Samson's behest, Ronald picked May up at her home and drove her to the wedding. May testified that she had been drinking and was dressed like [she] just was cleaning; in fact, she was wearing a camouflage tank top. Ronald drove her to a private home where a notary public performed the rather spartan 2 The defense stipulated that pursuant to state law, both parties are required to be present to apply for and receive a valid marriage license. -4- nuptials. The groom wore a suit, but did not provide a ring. Instead, the couple borrowed a ring from the officiant for Samson to place on the bride's finger (something borrowed) and the bride mimed placing a ring on the groom's finger. Following the brief ceremony, Ronald drove the bride back to his house; the groom followed with a friend in a separate car. While at Ronald's house, May observed Samson as he handed Ronald a lot of money. Ronald then gave May $800 or $900 before pocketing a good amount for himself. A short time later, Ronald and Samson dropped May off at her home. May testified that she did not intend to actually be married to Samson, nor did she ever live with him.
When May became pregnant in September 2009, the father was not her new husband, but rather, the same man who fathered her younger child. During her pregnancy, both Samson and Ronald asked her to sign papers for Samson's green card; initially, she refused. Finally, on February 24, 2010, after Ronald called her and explained the relevant paperwork, May signed an I-130 Petition for Alien Relative. May gave birth in, appropriately enough, May. Six weeks later, Samson called her and asked her to attend an appointment in South Portland the following day, in order to secure his green card. Samson and Ronald picked May up the next morning, along with her two children. During the ride, Ronald, a veteran of the process, directed the couple in a rehearsal of what they would -5- likely be asked, and what they should say. In particular, they agreed that if asked what TV show they liked, they would answer NCIS. Ronald also pointed out that the presence of May's infant child of another father would look bad, and so Ronald remained in the car with the infant while the couple and May's older child attended the interview in the immigration office. Unsurprisingly, the interview did not go well. Immigration Service Officer Kurt Pelletier questioned the couple separately. Both May and Samson gave their address as 20 Garfield Street, Apartment 25--Ronald's address--although both claimed to live there with May's one child. No mention was made of either the new baby or Ronald living there. Samson provided a lease to Pelletier for the Garfield Street apartment, with Alice Sengoonzi and Samson Sengoonzi listed on it. Pelletier asked May and Samson a series of questions, individually, about their wedding and what they watched on Saturday night. May forgot her lines and, instead of NCIS, talked about watching a movie. Samson, on the other hand, missed his cue; when asked about Saturday night, he said my favorite show is NCIS--a statement that Pelletier felt was not an answer to the question he had posed. There were other red flags; according to Pelletier, they gave conflicting answers to several questions, although they both agreed that they met through a friend named Ronald. -6- After failing to win over Pelletier in this high-stakes newlywed game, the couple received not lovely parting gifts but a notice of intent to deny (NOID). Having determined that this was possibly a fraudulent marriage, Pelletier sent the notice to May at Ronald's Garfield Street address.
On July 19, 2010, Samson and Ronald went to the immigration center to file a rebuttal. Pelletier happened to be working at the counter that day, and recognized Ronald, whom he had previously interviewed when Ronald applied for his permanent residence. According to Pelletier, Ronald did most of the talking and provided Pelletier with several documents: a proof of marriage authenticity purportedly signed by May, a bank statement from Five County Credit Union in the name of Samson Sengoonzi which showed a deposit transfer from Ronald for $25,3 and a Liberty Mutual receipt showing that an insurance agreement was purchased on behalf of Samson and paid for with Ronald's credit card. Unhappily for Samson, the documents that were proffered to bolster the authenticity of his marriage had the opposite effect. After 3 The bank account was opened in Samson's name on June 30, 2010, and May's name was added to the account on July 7, 2010. May testified that she agreed to add her name to the joint account because Samson said that he needed more proof of our marriage. Notably, Five County Credit Union has a minimum opening deposit requirement of $25. -7- viewing them, Pelletier referred the matter for criminal investigation. Pelletier also performed a simple online search and determined that May had given birth six weeks before the initial interview, yet she failed to mention anything about that child. Pelletier sent a second NOID in February 2011. In response to the second NOID, Pelletier received additional documents, including: paperwork from Five County Credit Union, insurance coverage, a Time Warner Cable bill, a W-2 in Samson's name, and a letter dated March 12, 2011, entitled proof of marriage that, again, purported to be signed by Alice G. Sengoonzi. May testified that she did not write or sign either letter. The immigration office requested another interview, but Samson cancelled it, claiming that his wife was out of state at the moment visiting with the rest of her family in Alabama. The second interview never occurred. At some point in 2010 or 2011, Samson gave May a Ford Explorer. Although she could not recall when she received the vehicle, May testified that Samson gave it to her because it was [p]retty much more money towards . . . the marriage. May further testified that she received additional money from Samson and Ronald either through Western Union or personally, but she was unable to remember the amounts. After she learned that she was under investigation regarding the marriage, May cooperated in the investigation and -8- signed a plea agreement. In June 2011, after she had begun cooperating with Agent James Bell of the Department of Homeland Security, May received a series of text messages that she forwarded to Bell. The text conversation began on June 10, 2011, when May missed a phone call on her cell phone. Because the number was unfamiliar, May texted back Who this. This exchange followed, between May's cell phone and a cell phone later determined to belong to Ronald: Its me ronald Who U remember Samson? Ya Im busy Don't need anything but to let u know if immigra[n]t guys came n ask u if samson gave you money or car to marry him just say no. When nearly an hour passed with no response from May, Ronald texted again: U got my text m[e]ss? Ya Coz they have been checkin some people if they were paid. And if u say yes ur put in jail for 5[]years. After forwarding these texts to Agent Bell, May agreed to wear a wire to record a conversation between herself and Samson on June 28, 2011. Although the tape of this conversation was not -9- introduced into evidence,4 Bell testified that, during the recording, May asked Samson, Why did you have Ronald text me? and later, [S]o you had him text me? In February 2012, a superseding indictment was filed charging Ronald with conspiring to participate in a sham marriage for the purpose of defrauding the United States. The indictment alleged two objects of the conspiracy: (1) for Samson to acquire a change of his United States immigration status to which he would not otherwise have been entitled by falsely representing to agencies of the United States Government that the marriage into which Samson entered . . . was bona fide when in fact it was not, and (2) for [May] to profit financially by accepting payments from co-conspirators, including Samson and Ronald, in exchange for participating in a sham marriage and helping Samson obtain a change of immigration status. A jury trial commenced in April 2013. At the close of the government's case, and again at the conclusion of the trial, Ronald moved for judgment of acquittal; both motions were denied. After a three-day trial, the jury convicted Ronald of conspiracy to defraud the government. Samson, who had been charged with conspiracy, document fraud, and making a false statement, pled guilty to the latter two counts and did not cooperate with the 4 The Assistant U.S. Attorney made a representation that the tape, which implicated Samson, was not offered into evidence because it was not relevant to the case against Ronald. -10- government, nor testify at Ronald's trial. At his sentencing hearing, Ronald was given four months in prison and one year of supervised release, four months of which must be spent in home confinement. Ronald timely appealed. He raises two main issues for our consideration. II.