Court Opinion

ID: 9906468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-02 21:00:26.352131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:26.880304
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 15

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-4268

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        FRANCIS ARTHUR,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
        Paul W. Grimm, Senior District Judge. (8:17-cr-00253-PWG-4)

        Submitted: November 20, 2023                                 Decided: December 1, 2023

        Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Peter L. Goldman, SABOURA, GOLDMAN & COLOMBO, P.C.,
        Alexandria, Virginia; Alex P. Treiger, KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL &
        FREDERICK, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Erek L. Barron, United States
        Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, Christian J. Nauvel, Special Assistant United States
        Attorney, Thomas M. Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 15

        PER CURIAM:

               Francis Arthur was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to commit concealment

        money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), four counts of concealment money

        laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (counts 3 through 6), and one count

        of promotion and concealment money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

        § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)(i). The district court sentenced Arthur to 12 months and 1 day in

        prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Arthur raises several challenges to his

        convictions. We affirm.

               Arthur first challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the

        superseding indictment, arguing that the pretrial removal from the United States of his

        codefendant Kelvin Asare violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to

        present favorable testimony at trial. The parties debate the standard of review that governs

        this claim. Ordinarily, in an appeal of the district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss an

        indictment, we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal

        conclusions de novo. United States v. Barringer, 25 F.4th 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2022). Arthur

        contends he adequately preserved this claim in the district court because his motion to

        dismiss the superseding indictment was based in part on the due process violation he

        experienced because of Asare’s unavailability. Thus, while he did not argue in the district

        court that Asare’s unavailability affected his ability to present favorable testimony, he

        argues that because the due process claim is preserved that this argument is allowed on

        appeal as a new argument supporting a preserved claim. The Government contends Arthur

        is raising this claim for the first time on appeal and that plain-error review applies. We

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268        Doc: 36       Filed: 12/01/2023      Pg: 3 of 15

        conclude that, regardless of the standard of review that applies, Arthur cannot prevail on

        this claim because he cannot demonstrate that an error occurred.

               In United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, the Supreme Court recognized that the

        Executive Branch’s responsibility to faithfully execute the immigration policy adopted by

        Congress justifies the prompt removal of individuals without lawful status in the United

        States. 458 U.S. 858, 863-65, 872-73 (1982). That the Government removes a potential

        witness is not by itself sufficient to establish a violation of the Due Process Clause of the

        Fifth Amendment or the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Id. at

        872-73. Rather, violation of these rights is established by the defendant making “a

        plausible showing that the testimony of the [removed] witness[] would have been material

        and favorable to his defense, in ways not merely cumulative to the testimony of available

        witnesses.” United States v. Kaixiang Zhu, 854 F.3d 247, 254, 256 (4th Cir. 2017)

        (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that Arthur has not made

        this showing here.

               Arthur’s argument that Asare would have furnished material, favorable, and

        exculpatory testimony rests on a thin reed. His argument presumes that we accept his

        contention that Asare contacted Arthur’s defense counsel before Arthur’s trial—but after

        Asare had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, served his sentence, and was

        removed from the United States—and told counsel that Arthur was unaware of the

        conspiracy and that he (Asare) had informed prosecuting attorneys about Arthur’s “lack of

        involvement in the conspiracy” during his (Asare’s) plea and sentencing.            But the

        Government disputed that contention below and disputes it on appeal. The district court

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/01/2023      Pg: 4 of 15

        never resolved the issue, and the record discloses only that the person who spoke with

        defense counsel claimed to be Asare. Though this person initially agreed to appear for a

        deposition to provide testimony under oath confirming his identity and that defense counsel

        had accurately recounted his statements, he ultimately failed to appear for the deposition.

        These circumstances, we conclude, counsel against the conclusion that Arthur has

        established prejudice from the lack of Asare’s testimony at trial.

               Moreover, even if Asare was the person who spoke with defense counsel, and even

        if he had appeared and testified at trial that Arthur was unaware of the conspiracy and

        lacked involvement in it, Arthur still fails to show prejudice because such testimony

        “simply would not have been ‘material and favorable to his defense, in ways not merely

        cumulative to the testimony of available witnesses.’” Kaixiang Zhu, 854 F.3d at 256

        (quoting Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. at 873). “Evidence is material ‘only if there is a

        reasonable likelihood that the testimony could have affected the judgment of the trier of

        fact.’” Id. (quoting Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. at 874). “Materiality ‘must be evaluated

        in the context of the entire record.’” Id. (quoting Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. at 868).

               Arthur, we conclude, cannot show Asare’s testimony would have been both material

        and favorable to his defense in ways not merely cumulative to the testimony of available

        witnesses when that testimony is evaluated in the context of the entire record. Asare had

        repeatedly inculpated Arthur in his statements to government investigators and admitted

        under oath to the district court when pleading guilty that he had conspired with Arthur to

        execute a scheme to defraud financial institutions and that Arthur participated in aspects of

        that scheme.    Of course, at trial, Asare could have disclaimed or renounced these

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36          Filed: 12/01/2023     Pg: 5 of 15

        admissions and testified that Arthur knew nothing about the conspiracy and lacked

        involvement in it. But if Asare had done so, the Government could have impeached that

        testimony. And, critically, Arthur’s knowledge or lack thereof of the conspiracy and the

        scope of his participation in it were matters that could have been addressed by other

        witnesses and, indeed, were addressed by the testimony Arthur and named coconspirator

        Samuel Attakora gave at trial. Asare’s testimony, we therefore conclude, was not both

        material and favorable to Arthur’s defense in ways not merely cumulative to the testimony

        of the available witnesses. Because Arthur fails to show a constitutional error, he cannot

        prevail on this claim, under review for plain error or otherwise.

               Next, Arthur contends that the district court reversibly erred in refusing to conduct

        an in camera review of the Government’s files on Asare. In denying Arthur’s motion to

        dismiss the superseding indictment, the district court declined to review the Government’s

        files for material subject to disclosure under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

               “Brady requires the disclosure by the [G]overnment of evidence that is both

        favorable to the accused and material to guilt or punishment.” United States v. Caldwell,

        7 F.4th 191, 207 (4th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). In evaluating the district court’s ruling

        declining to review the Government’s files for such material, we review the district court’s

        legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Id. at 208. “[W]here a

        defendant at least makes some plausible showing that the particular information sought

        exists and that it would be both material and favorable to his defense,” he is “entitled to

        have the information he has sufficiently identified submitted to the trial court for in camera

        inspection and a properly reviewable judicial determination made whether any portions

                                                      5
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36          Filed: 12/01/2023     Pg: 6 of 15

        meet the material and favorable requirements for compulsory disclosure.” Id. (cleaned up).

        However, “mere speculation that the information may be helpful is insufficient to justify

        an in camera review.” Id. (cleaned up).

               We conclude that Arthur fails to show reversible error in this regard.            The

        Government produced to the defense all memoranda of interviews with Asare and DVDs

        containing video recordings of interviews of him conducted by law enforcement it had in

        its possession; in those produced materials, Asare made statements that both appeared to

        confirm and deny the existence of a conspiracy and that described his relationship with

        Arthur in conflicting ways. Although Arthur agrees on appeal that the Government

        disclosed these materials, he still maintains that the district court’s review refusal was

        erroneous because the Government never produced “the rest of its file on Asare.” This

        “file,” Arthur continues, could contain evidence in the form of Asare’s statements that

        Arthur was unaware of the fraud. Thus, in Arthur’s view, because he had identified specific

        evidence—this “file”—that could contain materially favorable evidence in the form of

        Asare’s statements that he was unaware of the fraud, he made a plausible showing requiring

        the district court’s in camera review.

               We reject this argument. It is premised on the existence of some “file” or portion

        containing notes by law enforcement and prosecutors about Asare in the Government’s

        possession that it did not disclose. But Arthur has identified nothing in the record tending

        to suggest or show that such file or portion indeed exists or, if it exists, contains any such

        undisclosed notes about Asare. Arthur’s mere speculation that such file or portion exists

        is not enough to meet the plausibility requirement needed for in camera review. Cf. United

                                                      6
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268        Doc: 36           Filed: 12/01/2023   Pg: 7 of 15

        States v. King, 628 F.3d 693, 703 (4th Cir. 2011) (stating that, in making requisite plausible

        showing, defendant must identify material with some degree of specificity and concluding

        that King made required plausible showing triggering his right to an in camera inspection

        by identifying existing transcript of grand jury testimony given by one witness that

        Government refused to disclose to defense); Love v. Johnson, 57 F.3d 1305, 1307, 1316

        (4th Cir. 1995) (granting in camera examination in response to request for alleged victim’s

        existing file with county social services department). We therefore affirm the district

        court’s ruling declining to conduct an in camera review. 1

               Arthur also contends that the district court reversibly erred in denying his motion

        under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) to introduce into evidence testimony from Asare’s former

        attorney Marc Hall about Asare’s statement to him. We review a district court’s ruling on

        the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion, viewing the “evidence in the light

        most favorable to the proponent[ and] maximizing its probative value and minimizing its

        prejudicial effect.”     Burgess v. Goldstein, 997 F.3d 541, 559 (4th Cir. 2021)

        (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, we “will overturn an evidentiary ruling only if

        it is arbitrary and irrational.” Id.

               1
                  Relying on United States v. Abdallah, 911 F.3d 201 (4th Cir. 2018), Arthur also
        argues that it was error for the district court to rely on the Government’s assurances that all
        material, exculpatory evidence had been produced. But in Abdallah, we cautioned that the
        district court “cannot solely ‘rely on the government’s good faith’ as a basis to avoid
        review” where a defendant has “identifie[d] specific evidence that could plausibly be
        favorable to his defense.” Abdallah, 911 F.3d at 218 (quoting King, 628 F.3d at 702). Here,
        Abdallah is inapplicable because Arthur has failed to plausibly identify such evidence.

                                                        7
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/01/2023     Pg: 8 of 15

               Rule 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides, in relevant part, that a

        hearsay statement made by a declarant who is unavailable as a witness may be admitted

        into evidence if the statement was one that “a reasonable person in the declarant’s position

        would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it . . . had

        so great a tendency to . . . expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability” and if the

        statement is “supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its

        trustworthiness.” Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). “Stated otherwise, ‘hearsay may be admitted

        under this exception if (1) the declarant is unavailable, (2) the statement is genuinely

        adverse to the declarant’s penal interest, and (3) corroborating circumstances clearly

        indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.’” United States v. Alvarado, 816 F.3d 242,

        250 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Bumpass, 60 F.3d 1099, 1102 (4th Cir. 1995)).

               Arthur’s motion asserted that, after contacting defense counsel, Asare told attorney

        Hall that Arthur did not have knowledge about “the conspiracies and unlawful activities

        alleged in” the second superseding indictment. We conclude that Arthur cannot prevail on

        this claim because Asare’s purported statement does not satisfy the second and third

        admissibility requirements under Rule 804(b)(3).

               On the second requirement, the Rule only allows the admission of the

        self-inculpatory portions of a hearsay statement. Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S.

        594, 599, 604 (1994). It does not permit the admission of statements about the roles of

        other individuals in the alleged crime.     Id. at 599-600.    “[W]hether a statement is

        self-inculpatory or not can only be determined by viewing it in context.” Id. at 603. The

        question under Rule 804(b)(3) “is always whether the statement was sufficiently against

                                                     8
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268       Doc: 36         Filed: 12/01/2023      Pg: 9 of 15

        the declarant’s penal interest that a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would not

        have made the statement unless believing it to be true, and this question can only be

        answered in light of all the surrounding circumstances.” Id. at 603-04 (internal quotation

        marks omitted).

               Asare’s purported statement to attorney Hall was made after Asare had pleaded

        guilty, been sentenced, served his sentence, and been removed from the United States. As

        the district court determined, and as the parties do not dispute on appeal, at the time of this

        statement, Asare was beyond the reach of the United States to bring him back for further

        criminal charges. Given these circumstances, Arthur’s argument that Asare’s statement

        was inculpatory for Asare lacks merit because the statement was not against his penal

        interest. See, e.g., United States v. Grajales-Montoya, 117 F.3d 356, 364 (8th Cir. 1997)

        (finding it illogical for defendant to argue that statement by wife regarding defendant’s

        lack of criminal involvement was inculpatory to wife because wife’s statements about

        defendant’s role would not have subjected wife to increased criminal liability).

               Moreover, even if this statement was against Asare’s penal interest, Rule 804(b)(3)

        also requires that such statement be supported by corroborating circumstances for it to be

        admitted. In determining whether such circumstances are present, we consider:

               (1) whether the declarant had at the time of making the statement pled guilty
               or was still exposed to prosecution for making the statement, (2) the
               declarant’s motive in making the statement and whether there was a reason
               for the declarant to lie, (3) whether the declarant repeated the statement and
               did so consistently, (4) the party or parties to whom the statement was made,
               (5) the relationship of the declarant with the accused, and (6) the nature and
               strength of independent evidence relevant to the conduct in question.

        United States v. Dargan, 738 F.3d 643, 650 (4th Cir. 2013).

                                                      9
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/01/2023      Pg: 10 of 15

               Considered together, the circumstances here show the corroboration requirement

        was not met. Although Asare’s purported statement to attorney Hall was consistent with

        what defense counsel claimed Asare had told him, it deviated from both Asare’s statements

        to investigators that inculpated Arthur and his statements inculpating Arthur made to the

        district court under oath in connection with his guilty plea. Additionally, this unsworn

        statement to attorney Hall was made after Asare had served his sentence and was beyond

        the reach of the Government to further prosecute him, and no evidence suggests he was or

        is exposed to prosecution for making that statement. Further, we conclude after review

        that the evidence adduced at trial does not provide strong support for Asare’s purported

        statement. Given the absence here of corroborating circumstances, the district court did

        not reversibly err in denying Arthur’s motion.

               Arthur next challenges the district court’s decision to instruct the jury on willful

        blindness over his objection. We review the district court’s decision to instruct the jury on

        willful blindness for abuse of discretion. United States v. Vinson, 852 F.3d 333, 357

        (4th Cir. 2017). “The willful blindness doctrine is premised on the idea that defendants

        should not be permitted to ‘escape the reach’ of criminal statutes that require proof that a

        defendant acted knowingly or willfully ‘by deliberately shielding themselves from clear

        evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances.’” United

        States v. Oloyede, 933 F.3d 302, 316 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Global-Tech Appliances,

        Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011)). To ensure that the willful blindness doctrine

        retains “an appropriately limited scope that surpasses recklessness and negligence,” its

        application has “two basic requirements: (1) the defendant must subjectively believe that

                                                     10
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268       Doc: 36         Filed: 12/01/2023     Pg: 11 of 15

        there is a high probability that a fact exists and (2) the defendant must take deliberate

        actions to avoid learning of that fact.” Id. (quoting Global-Tech Appliances, 564 U.S. at

        769).

                In deciding to instruct the jury on willful blindness here, the district court found

        both requirements had been satisfied. On appeal, Arthur challenges the district court’s

        determination on only the second prong, arguing the instruction was unwarranted because

        there was no evidence that he took deliberate action to avoid learning of a scheme to

        defraud a credit union. We disagree. The evidence justified the instruction because it

        amply allowed the inference that Arthur “t[oo]k[] deliberate actions to avoid learning of”

        the fraud. Global-Tech Appliances, 563 U.S. at 769. The Wells Fargo bank account

        associated with corporation Anivac—which did not do any business—on which Arthur was

        the sole signatory received a fraudulently made wire transfer of $327,000 from a Nymeo

        Federal Credit Union account after Arthur was present during a meeting with Attakora and

        Asare where an imposter was shown fake credentials needed to effect the transfer from the

        Nymeo account to the Wells Fargo account.

                On cross examination, Arthur admitted he was nervous about these funds and feared

        his dealings with Attakora and Asare could result in the involvement of law enforcement.

        Despite this nervousness, however, Arthur was careful not to confirm the details of the

        operation. Although he traveled with Asare and Attakora from Maryland to meet with the

        imposter in Atlanta, Georgia, he never asked questions about why the trio had traveled

        there. Arthur never contacted the Nymeo account holder after the $327,000 transfer had

        been made. Further, there was evidence suggesting that Arthur’s reason for distributing

                                                     11
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268       Doc: 36          Filed: 12/01/2023      Pg: 12 of 15

        funds out of the account was to avoid having to deal with funds identified as fraudulently

        transferred. Although Arthur argues that he took affirmative steps to discover the source

        of the funds, the jury was not required to believe his testimony. See Oloyede, 933 F.3d at

        316. Thus, because the jury could have reasonably inferred from all of this that Arthur

        took deliberate actions to discern the source of the funds, we discern no reversible error in

        the district court’s decision to instruct the jury on willful blindness.

               Finally, Arthur challenges the district court’s denial of his post-trial motion for a

        judgment of acquittal or a new trial. He argues that the evidence is insufficient to support

        his convictions because the Government failed to prove he knew the funds in the Anivac

        Wells Fargo account that he distributed were proceeds of unlawful activity. He also

        contends that he is independently entitled to acquittal on counts 3 through 6 because the

        Government failed to prove he withdrew funds through cashiers checks and made a cash

        withdrawal knowing such transactions were designed to conceal proceeds of unlawful

        activity.

               We review de novo the denial of a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c) motion for a judgment of

        acquittal after a guilty verdict. United States v. Young, 916 F.3d 368, 384 (4th Cir. 2019).

        In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether there is substantial

        evidence to support the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government.

        Id. Substantial evidence is “evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as

        adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable

        doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Howard, 773 F.3d

        519, 525 (4th Cir. 2014)). In assessing whether substantial evidence is present, we are

                                                      12
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268       Doc: 36           Filed: 12/01/2023    Pg: 13 of 15

        “‘not entitled to assess witness credibility’ and must ‘assume that the jury resolved any

        conflicting evidence in the prosecution’s favor.’” United States v. Robinson, 55 F.4th 390,

        404 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Savage, 885 F.3d 212, 219 (4th Cir. 2018)).

        Defendants “bear[] a heavy burden” under this standard, and “appellate reversal on grounds

        of insufficient evidence is confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”

        Savage, 885 F.3d at 219.

               To obtain a conviction for money laundering conspiracy violating 18 U.S.C.

        § 1956(h), the Government had to prove: (1) the existence of an agreement between two or

        more persons to commit one or more of the substantive money laundering offenses

        proscribed under 18 U.S.C § 1956(a) or § 1957; (2) that the defendant knew that the money

        laundering proceeds had been derived from an illegal activity; and (3) the defendant

        knowingly and voluntarily became part of the conspiracy. United States v. Green, 599 F.3d

        360, 371 (4th Cir. 2010). Concealment money laundering requires, inter alia, proof that

        the defendant knew that the property involved represented the proceeds of some form of

        unlawful activity, United States v. Farrell, 921 F.3d 116, 137 (4th Cir. 2019), and “proof

        ‘that the defendant knew that the transaction was designed in whole or part, to conceal or

        disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds

        of the unlawful activity,’” United States v. Millender, 970 F.3d 523, 530 (4th Cir. 2020)

        (quoting Farrell, 921 F.3d at 137).

               We review the district court’s decision whether to grant a new trial for abuse of

        discretion. Id. at 531. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, the district court “may vacate any

        judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a).

                                                      13
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/01/2023      Pg: 14 of 15

        “But a court should exercise its discretion to grant a new trial sparingly, [and a] new trial

        is warranted only when the evidence weighs so heavily against the verdict that it would be

        unjust to enter judgment.” Millender, 970 F.3d at 531 (cleaned up).

               We conclude after review that the Government presented sufficient evidence to

        show Arthur knew the funds in the Anivac Wells Fargo account that he distributed were

        the proceeds of unlawful activity. Arthur established a corporation that did no business,

        opened a bank account associated with it in which funds could be deposited, distributed

        fraudulently transferred funds to coconspirators, expected to receive a portion of the funds,

        and held suspicion about the nature of the funds and fear of the police as a result of the

        funds being present in the account yet nonetheless processed the distribution of funds out

        of the account.    Attakora’s testimony directly implicated Arthur as a knowing and

        voluntary participant in the fraud scheme and distributions and confirmed Arthur

        understood that, after the imposter used fraudulent documentation to effect the wire transfer

        of funds into the Anivac account, that his (Arthur’s) role was to distribute funds out of the

        account. Attakora’s testimony addressing the timing of and motivation for moving funds

        out of the Anivac account also allowed the jury to infer that the transactions distributing

        the funds were performed in order to conceal from Wells Fargo their unlawful nature, see

        18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); see Millender, 970 F.3d at 530 (noting that transactions

        supporting conviction need not conceal source of proceeds if they conceal the nature of

        proceeds and upholding conviction where jury could reasonably find that false purposes

        noted on checks were designed to make funds look like lawful reimbursements).

                                                     14
USCA4 Appeal: 22-4268      Doc: 36          Filed: 12/01/2023     Pg: 15 of 15

               While Arthur criticizes Attakora’s testimony as vague and inconsistent, it is the jury,

        not this court, that weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the

        evidence presented, Caldwell, 7 F.4th at 209, and the jury’s credibility determinations are

        not susceptible to judicial review, Robinson, 55 F.4th at 404. The jury heard from Attakora

        (as a witness for both the prosecution and the defense) and Arthur himself. Both Attakora

        and Arthur were cross-examined, and the jury could assess the credibility of the testimony

        given by each. Because we decline to second-guess the jury’s determination, Robinson,

        55 F.4th at 404, Arthur’s credibility challenge provides no basis for him to receive relief

        on appeal. Arthur fails to show the evidence weighs so heavily against the jury’s verdict

        or a lack of substantial evidence supporting the verdict. The district court thus did not

        reversibly err in denying his post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal or a new trial.

               Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                         AFFIRMED

                                                     15