Court Opinion

ID: 9395654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 16:00:52.652871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.315411
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                            For the Eighth Circuit
                        ___________________________

                                No. 22-2046
                        ___________________________

                             United States of America

                        lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

                                           v.

                                    Ryan Kinsey

                       lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
                                       ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                   for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
                                   ____________

                           Submitted: January 13, 2023
                              Filed: May 18, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.
                             ____________

PER CURIAM.

      A jury found Ryan Kinsey guilty of theft of government funds, a violation of
18 U.S.C. § 641, and making a false statement to a federal agency, a violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Kinsey appeals the district court’s1 denial of his motion for
judgment of acquittal, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had
had the requisite criminal intent to commit the offenses. He also argues that the
verdict form undermined the presumption of innocence to which he was entitled. We
affirm.

       Kinsey became disabled for purposes of the Social Security Administration
(SSA) on January 4, 2013, and began receiving disability benefits. As relevant here,
he completed two reports in 2018 regarding his continuing disability. When asked
whether he had worked since the date of his last medical disability decision, he
selected “no.” He also indicated that he did not drive, could not count money, and
had difficulty getting along with people. The SSA decided to continue Kinsey’s
benefits because there had been no medical improvement.

       Shortly thereafter, the SSA received a fraud referral based on an SSA
employee’s observations of Kinsey. Under pretenses of investigating possible
identity fraud, an investigator interviewed Kinsey in August 2018. Kinsey disclosed
that he had been self-employed for seven years and was in the business of buying,
selling, and trading horses at auctions in several states. He also told the investigator
that he had recently financed the purchase of land. The investigator discovered ads
for horses, hay, and “tractor work” on Facebook and Craigslist that listed Kinsey’s
phone number as the point of contact and which indicated his willingness to travel.

        Kinsey was interviewed regarding his disability benefits in January 2019. He
initially confirmed the accuracy of his answers in the 2018 reports. After being
confronted with evidence that he had been working, Kinsey admitted that he had
worked on his father’s ranch in a limited capacity until his father’s death in March

      1
       The Honorable Lee P. Rudofsky, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Arkansas.

                                          -2-
2017, at which time he took over the ranch as full-time employment. He explained
that he had not reported this because he did not consider self-employment “work.”
The SSA thereafter determined that Kinsey had not been eligible for disability
benefits received between March 2017 and January 2019 and that he and his children
had been overpaid by $20,530.

       Kinsey argues that the government failed to prove that he had knowingly stolen
government funds or made false statements. See United States v. Rehak, 589 F.3d
965, 973 (8th Cir. 2009) (government must prove that defendant voluntarily,
intentionally, and knowingly stole government funds for conviction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 641); United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010, 1018 (8th Cir. 2011) (government
must prove that the defendant knowingly and willfully made a statement that he knew
to be false for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)). The government presented
the 2018 reports in which Kinsey reported that he had not been working. It also
presented evidence that Kinsey had carried out ranch work, which he could not have
done if his limitations had been as significant as he had reported (e.g., that he did not
drive because of his disability). A jury could reasonably disregard Kinsey’s asserted
reason for these inconsistencies—that he did not believe the word “work” included
self-employment—and find that he had knowingly stolen funds from the SSA and
knowingly made a false statement to a federal agency. See United States v. Morris,
723 F.3d 934, 939 (8th Cir. 2013) (concluding that a reasonable jury could disregard
defendant’s claim of a good-faith misinterpretation of SSA’s definition of “work” and
find that defendant knowingly or intentionally stole SSA funds when defendant
reported to SSA that he did not work but represented to state board and an IRS agent
that he was a practicing accountant).

       Kinsey also argues that the district court abused its discretion by listing
“guilty” before “not guilty” on the verdict form. United States v. Martinson, 419 F.3d
749, 753 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). The district court instructed the jury
on the presumption of innocence, however, as well as on the government’s burden to

                                          -3-
prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and on the jury’s duty
to base its verdict solely on the evidence and the law as set forth in the instructions.
Moreover, it instructed the jury that nothing the court said or did was “intended to
suggest what [the jury’s] verdict should be.” Because the instructions taken as a
whole fully set forth and explained the government’s burden, as well as the
presumption of innocence, the district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting
Kinsey’s request to amend the verdict form to list “not guilty” first. See United States
v. Oaks, 606 F.3d 530, 538 (8th Cir. 2010) (“Jury instructions are adequate if, taken
as a whole, they adequately advise the jury of the essential elements of the offenses
charged and the burden of proof required of the government.” (cleaned up)); see also
United States v. Bell, 750 F. App’x 941, 943–44 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam)
(concluding that listing “guilty” before “not guilty” on verdict form did not
improperly instruct jury in light of district court’s full instructions).

      The judgment is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                          -4-