Court Opinion

ID: 9913866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-28 21:01:15.531927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:26.623627
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12385    Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023   Page: 1 of 21

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-12385
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        BRANDEN TYLER,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cr-60227-RS-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 2 of 21

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-12385

        Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Branden Tyler appeals his convictions for use of one or more
        unauthorized devices, possession of 15 or more unauthorized ac-
        cess devices, aggravated identity theft, and possession of access de-
        vice-making equipment. On appeal, Tyler makes several argu-
        ments. First, he argues that the government’s evidence was insuf-
        ficient to support his conviction for use of one or more unauthor-
        ized devices because its evidence was circumstantial. Second, he
        argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his aggra-
        vated identify theft conviction because there was insufficient evi-
        dence that he knew Willard Steele was a real person. Third, he
        argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convic-
        tion for possession of 15 or more unauthorized devices because
        there was no evidence presented about the usability of those de-
        vices. Fourth, he argues that there was insufficient evidence to
        support his convictions for possession of 15 or more unauthorized
        devices and possession of access device-making equipment because
        there was no evidence that his conduct affected interstate or for-
        eign commerce. And finally, he argues that the district court
        plainly erred when it gave an aiding and abetting jury instruction.
              For the following reasons, we affirm Tyler’s convictions.
                                       I.
               Tyler was charged in a second superseding indictment with:
        use of one or more unauthorized devices in violation of 18 U.S.C.
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 3 of 21

        22-12385               Opinion of the Court                        3

        § 1029(a)(2) (Count 1); possession of 15 or more unauthorized ac-
        cess devices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3) (Count 2); aggra-
        vated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028(A)(a)(1) (Count
        3), and possession of access device-making equipment in violation
        of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(4) (Count 4). Tyler proceeded to trial on the
        charges.
               At trial, the government called Brian Welshans, an employee
        at Truist Bank—formerly known as BB&T Bank—who testiﬁed to
        the following. Welshans investigated the activity for two credit
        cards at BB&T Bank in the name of Willard Steele. He found two
        credit card applications in Steele’s name that listed an 8231 North-
        west Court, Lauderhill, Florida, address (the “8231 address”). The
        credit cards were approved by the bank in Steele’s name in May
        2020, and between the two cards—one card’s account ending in
        4177 and the other’s ending in 0460—there were purchases and
        cash advances in excess of $46,000.
               Next, the government called Lauderhill Police Department
        Detective Richard Clarke, who testiﬁed to the following. Clarke
        started his investigation into Tyler after he received a call from
        Welshans, who told him that there was fraudulent activity associ-
        ated with the two credit cards in Steele’s name. Clarke ﬁrst con-
        tacted Steele, who informed him that he had no idea that either
        credit card had been opened. He found the bank statements for
        both credit cards suspicious because the applications were done
        online, there were multiple purchases and cash advances on them,
        and there were insuﬃcient funds used to pay oﬀ the payments on
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023      Page: 4 of 21

        4                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12385

        the cards. He noticed that there were Amazon purchases on the
        credit card for the 0460 account. He also found the bank statement
        for the 4177 account suspicious because of the cash advances from
        ATM machines, the card had been used over its limit, and there
        were Amazon purchases on that card. On both cards, there were
        around $11,467 in Amazon purchases. Clarke then subpoenaed
        Amazon, who provided the dates of orders, email addresses, and
        customer information; this information revealed that Steele was
        supposed to be the recipient of those items at the 8231 address.
        The Amazon items purchased included BDI furniture and Wolf
        Gourmet items. He also discovered that there was a UPS delivery
        to that address on July 1, 2020, for ﬁve items.
               Clarke saw “like” items to the Wolf Gourmet items ordered
        to another address in Lauderhill—5105 Northwest 75th Avenue
        (the “5105 address”), which was Tyler’s address. On September 6,
        2020, Clarke went to the 8231 address where the Amazon packages
        were delivered, and the person who resided there—who was not
        Steele—answered the door and stated he knew Tyler. After meet-
        ing this resident, Clarke identiﬁed a citation that was issued to Tyler
        outside the 8231 address on July 1, 2020.
               Clarke then went to the 5105 address, and Tyler answered
        the door and conﬁrmed that he lived there. Clarke gave Tyler his
        business card, which stated an appointment for the next Monday
        for Clarke to return and meet with Tyler. Clarke returned on that
        date, and Tyler again opened the door for him. Jacqueline Corn-
        wall, Tyler’s grandmother and the other resident of the home, took
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 5 of 21

        22-12385               Opinion of the Court                         5

        Clarke to the garage after Clarke showed her pictures of the Ama-
        zon items that were ordered. In the garage, Clarke saw similar-in-
        kind Wolf Gourmet products, two toasters, and an oven that he
        recognized to be similar to the Amazon products that were suppos-
        edly delivered to the 8231 address on July 1, 2020.
               Clarke then searched a bedroom that Tyler’s family stated
        was Tyler’s room. In this room, Clarke found his business card that
        he handed to Tyler the ﬁrst time he went to the residence, prepaid
        phones that he described as burner phones, a laptop, printers, and
        a Dyson dryer. In Clarke’s experience, prepaid phones indicated
        fraud, a dryer was often used to ensure that any forms of identiﬁ-
        cation made and printed with ink could dry quickly, and the print-
        ers were often used to print cards. Additionally, in the bedroom,
        oﬃcers found credit cards with other individuals’ names, a driver’s
        license with Tyler’s name that listed the 5105 address, a card-reader,
        a hologram package, eleven Florida driver’s licenses, and a Bank of
        America checkbook in the name of someone who did not live at
        the residence. Next to the hologram, Clarke found at least ﬁfty
        blank plastic cards. He then swiped all the cards found in the bed-
        room with a card-reader that provided the information of the indi-
        viduals whose names were on those cards, of which there were at
        least ﬁfteen or twenty. He also found an “HID” device, which can
        be used to produce cards such as driver’s licenses or bank cards, and
        a coder reencoder, which can be used to add or erase information
        on cards that can be purchased on Amazon and that often are used
        for fraud. He further found a book that was a guide for driver’s
        licenses in each state and blank checks.
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 6 of 21

        6                      Opinion of the Court                22-12385

                Also, during the search, oﬃcers found bank statements, re-
        ceipts, debit card statements, a ticket, a letter from the Internal
        Revenue Service, and correspondence from the Department of
        Transportation all in Tyler’s name. They found letters addressed
        to individuals other than Tyler related to identity theft. They found
        a safe that had $140,000 in hundred-dollar bills, a BMW key and a
        title for the BMW in Tyler’s name with the 5105 address listed, per-
        sonal identiﬁcation all belonging to Tyler, postal orders worth
        $14,000, and jewelry valued at about $160,000. A Rolex watch was
        also found in the safe, which was purchased under the name
        Kareem and the cards used to pay for it were consistent with the
        names on IDs that were found in Tyler’s room. There was also an
        empty box for a Sony A92 camera and lens, which was consistent
        with the camera from the Amazon purchases ordered from the
        cards taken out in Steele’s name, and the camera was in the Ama-
        zon box when it was found. Oﬃcers also found two laptops, a To-
        paz signature pad was found which can be used to make signatures,
        a HID card reader, two other card readers, and holograms that
        would go on a Florida driver’s license.
                Clarke ultimately followed up with the banks for each credit
        card found. And he identiﬁed the people whose driver’s licenses
        were found. On cross-examination, Clarke explained that, during
        his investigation, he found that three of the places that the cards
        were used at had video of a person ﬁtting Tyler’s description and
        that a live witness identiﬁed Tyler at one of those locations. Clarke
        also viewed Ring camera footage outside the house of the person
        receiving the packages and determined it to be Tyler.
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 12/28/2023    Page: 7 of 21

        22-12385              Opinion of the Court                       7

               The government next called Oﬃcer Robert Murray, who tes-
        tiﬁed that he had responded to a suspicious vehicle report on July
        1, 2020, near the 8231 address. When Murray arrived, he saw a car
        parked in the road occupied by Tyler. Tyler told Murray that he
        was “waiting for something” and handed him his Florida driver’s
        license, and the license photo matched the person Murray saw in
        the car—Tyler. On the ticket Murray issued to Tyler, Murray listed
        Tyler’s name and his address as the 5105 address.
                The government then called Rachel Varela, a Lauderhill Po-
        lice Department crime scene unit supervisor who worked as a la-
        tent ﬁngerprint examiner in Tyler’s case. Varela collected Tyler’s
        ﬁngerprints from him and explained that the ﬁngerprints lifted
        from the MacBook laptop taken from the bedroom matched Ty-
        ler’s ﬁngerprints.
                The government then called Detective Jaynis Tadlock, a dig-
        ital forensic examiner with the City of Miami Police Department,
        who testiﬁed to the following. Tadlock analyzed the Razor laptop
        discovered in the search and found that the username for the com-
        puter was “Yoda.” She recognized a letter addressed to Tyler with
        the 5105 address from Bank of America that was located on the
        computer. She also found bank enrollment information for PNC
        bank and Green Dot on one of the devices she analyzed. Tadlock
        then read out messages from a phone she analyzed. The messages
        were from “Andre Johnson” to a username that was a grouping of
        numbers. Johnson asked this username, “You doing look-ups?”;
        the username responded, “Yep. $15 a name.” Tadlock found a text
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 8 of 21

        8                      Opinion of the Court                22-12385

        message between Johnson and the username that discussed Truth
        Finder, a website where anyone can purchase a background check
        on a person. The email for the Truth Finder account was
        “Yoda305305@gmail.” Tadlock also read more messages between
        Johnson and the username that stated, “I signed this morning. Go
        bank. Took like 20-minute, LOL. Yep. Just got to go small,” and “I
        just got everything within an hour. I just got another 128K.” An-
        other message stated, “Send license number. Send height you want
        on it. Send the four digits after the 3313, send issue and expiration
        you want on it”; the response to this message was “generate li-
        cense.” Tadlock also found an email on the laptop for “WillAS-
        teele1950@gmail.” There were also messages asking how much it
        was for a Florida ID card.
               Tadlock also found on the laptop an application called
        “Zeus” store, where a person can chat and request to look up
        names and address information; the application would return so-
        cial security numbers, birthdays, and other personal information.
        Tadlock found search results for Milagros Yap, Trad Hamdan, and
        Cassandra Reyes. And on cross-examination, Tadlock testiﬁed that,
        on one of the cellphones found, she found four pictures of Tyler.
               The government also called Yap and Reyes as witnesses.
        Both Yap and Reyes testiﬁed that they did not know Tyler or give
        him permission to have their identiﬁcation cards or open credit
        card accounts in their names. The government also called Steele,
        who testiﬁed that he did not open accounts for the credit cards end-
        ing in 4117 and 0460, that he did not know Tyler, that he did not
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023    Page: 9 of 21

        22-12385              Opinion of the Court                        9

        give anyone permission to open those accounts, and that he did not
        make any Amazon purchases on those accounts.
                Through its witnesses’ testimony, the government entered
        the following evidence. The government entered the BB&T credit
        card applications and the 4117 account’s activity report, which in-
        cluded: (1) purchases from Amazon stating that Amazon was lo-
        cated in Washington; (2) a purchase from Tempur Pedic that listed
        Kentucky as the postal code; and (3) a purchase from Verizon that
        had California listed as the location. Both credit card accounts had
        a North Carolina address listed for BB&T. The government also
        entered into evidence photos of all the items described above that
        were found in Tyler’s bedroom. The government further entered
        a consumer report that listed Tyler’s name and the 5105 address
        and the account summary for the 0460 account which showed the
        purchases and cash withdrawals. And the government entered the
        text messages between Johnson and the list of numbers username,
        as testiﬁed to by Tadlock.
                The government then rested its case, and Tyler moved for
        judgment of acquittal on Count 3, arguing that the government
        failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tyler possessed or
        used any means of identiﬁcation. In making this argument, how-
        ever, Tyler did not assert that the government had failed to estab-
        lish that Tyler knew Steele was a real person. After hearing the
        parties’ arguments, the district court stated that “defendant’s mo-
        tion for judgment of acquittal as to Counts 1 through 4 will be
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 10 of 21

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-12385

        denied.” After Tyler rested his case, Tyler renewed his motion,
        adopting the same prior argument, which the court denied.
                During trial, the district court asked if there were any objec-
        tions to the proposed jury instructions. Tyler stated he reviewed
        the instructions and did not have any objections, and the govern-
        ment sought to clarify that the aiding and abetting instruction was
        included, which the court stated it was. After the parties rested, the
        district court read the jury its instructions. Of relevance to this ap-
        peal, the following instruction was read to the jury:
                      A defendant aids and abets a person if the de-
               fendant intentionally joins with the person to commit
               a crime. A defendant is criminally responsible for the
               acts of another person if the defendant aids and abets
               the other person.
                      A defendant is only responsible if the defend-
               ant willfully directs or authorizes acts of an agent,
               employee or other associate. But, ﬁnding a defendant
               criminally responsible for the acts of another person
               requires proof that the defendant intentionally asso-
               ciated with or participated in the crime, not just proof
               that the defendant was simply present at the scene of
               a crime or knew about it. In other words, you must
               ﬁnd beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
               was a willful participant, not merely a knowing spec-
               tator.
              The jury found Tyler guilty on all four counts, and he was
        sentenced to 60 months’ imprisonment. This appeal ensued, and
        we now address Tyler’s arguments in turn.
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1     Date Filed: 12/28/2023    Page: 11 of 21

        22-12385              Opinion of the Court                       11

                                      II.
               First, Tyler argues that we should reverse his conviction for
        Count 1 because the government’s evidence was circumstantial
        and based on mere speculation. The government responds that
        there was ample evidence to convict Tyler of Count 1 because
        whether he acted alone or in concert with others, he was personally
        involved in a fraudulent scheme to use the credit cards to obtain
        property. And the government argues that there was overwhelm-
        ing evidence of Tyler’s constructive possession of the items found
        at the 5105 residence.
                We review de novo whether there was suﬃcient evidence to
        support a conviction. United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1284
        (11th Cir. 2009). In reviewing the suﬃciency of the evidence, we
        view the record in the light most favorable to the government, re-
        solving all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. Id. The
        evidence will be suﬃcient to support a conviction if “a reasonable
        trier of fact could ﬁnd that the evidence established guilt beyond a
        reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1284–85 (quoting United States v. Calhoon,
        97 F.3d 518, 523 (11th Cir. 1996)).
               The test for suﬃciency of the evidence is the same, whether
        or not the evidence is direct or circumstantial, but where the gov-
        ernment relied on circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences
        must support the conviction. United States v. Martin, 803 F.3d 581,
        587 (11th Cir. 2015). We assume that the jury resolved all questions
        of credibility in a manner supporting the verdict. Jiminez, 564 F.3d
        at 1285. Further, the evidence need not exclude every reasonable
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023    Page: 12 of 21

        12                     Opinion of the Court                22-12385

        hypothesis of innocence for a reasonable jury to ﬁnd guilt beyond
        a reasonable doubt. United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541, 1545
        (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc). Instead, the jury is free to choose among
        alternative, reasonable interpretations of the evidence. United
        States v. Beach, 80 F.4th 1245, 1256 (11th Cir. 2023).
               An individual is guilty of access device fraud when he
        “knowingly and with intent to defraud traﬃcs in or uses one or
        more unauthorized access devices during any one-year period, and
        by such conduct obtains anything of value aggregating $1,000 or
        more during that period.” 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2). Thus, to convict
        a defendant for use of unauthorized access devices, “the govern-
        ment must prove that the defendant: (1) ‘knowingly’ used ‘one or
        more unauthorized access devices,’ (2) ‘with intent to defraud,’ (3)
        to obtain anything having an aggregate value of ‘$1,000 or more’
        during a one-year period, and (4) such use ‘aﬀect[ed] interstate or
        foreign commerce.’” United States v. Klopf, 423 F.3d 1228, 1240 (11th
        Cir. 2005) (quoting § 1029(a)(2)).
                “It is well settled that possession of contraband may be con-
        structive as well as actual and may be proven by circumstantial ev-
        idence.” United States v. Kincade, 714 F.2d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir.
        1983). To prove actual possession, the government must prove that
        the defendant had either physical possession of or personal domin-
        ion over the thing allegedly possessed. United States v. Derose, 74
        F.3d 1177, 1185 (11th Cir. 1996). “Constructive possession exists
        when a defendant has ownership, dominion, or control over an ob-
        ject itself or dominion or control over the premises . . . in which
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023    Page: 13 of 21

        22-12385               Opinion of the Court                       13

        the object is concealed.” United States v. Leonard, 138 F.3d 906, 909
        (11th Cir. 1998). “Moreover, constructive possession need not be
        exclusive, but may be shared by others.” Kincade, 714 F.2d at 1066.
                Here, we conclude that the evidence presented at trial was
        sufficient to find that Tyler used one or more unauthorized devices
        in violation of § 1029(a)(2). First, based on the evidence, the jury
        could reasonably conclude that Tyler lived at the 5105 address and
        had possession over the bedroom where all the evidence was
        found. See Leonard, 138 F.3d at 909. Indeed, Tyler’s identification
        was found in the bedroom’s safe, his fingerprint was found on one
        of the laptops, his grandmother stated that it was his bedroom, and
        Tyler confirmed to Clarke that he lived at the 5105 address. There-
        fore, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that Tyler at least
        had dominion or control over the bedroom.
               There was also sufficient evidence for the jury to reasonably
        conclude that Tyler committed Count 1. Tyler was seen at the
        8231 address on July 1, 2020—the day the Amazon packages pur-
        chased from Steele’s account were supposed to be delivered.
        There was also evidence found in Tyler’s bedroom of Steele’s per-
        sonal information, as well as the email address of the person who
        applied for the two credit cards used and text messages found on a
        cellphone in the room that discussed the same email. Further,
        there was evidence of Wolf Gourmet items in the 5105 address’s
        garage. And there was also video footage of Tyler at the places the
        card was used and a witness who stated they saw Tyler at one of
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023    Page: 14 of 21

        14                     Opinion of the Court                22-12385

        those places. Accordingly, we conclude that there was sufficient
        evidence to support this conviction, and we affirm as to this issue.
                                       III.
               Next, Tyler argues that the government failed to present ev-
        idence that he knew that the means of identiﬁcation belonged to a
        real person beyond a reasonable doubt. In response, the govern-
        ment argues that Tyler did not argue in the district court that there
        was insuﬃcient evidence that he knew the cards belonged to a real
        person, and thus the claim should be reviewed for plain error. And
        the government asserts that there was suﬃcient evidence from
        which a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyler knew the cards
        belonged to a real person—Steele.
               We typically review challenges to the suﬃciency of the evi-
        dence de novo, but we review unpreserved objections to the suﬃ-
        ciency of evidence only for plain error. United States v. Zitron, 810
        F.3d 1253, 1260 (11th Cir. 2016). Under plain-error review, we ask
        whether there was (1) error; (2) that is plain; and (3) that aﬀects
        substantial rights. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466–67
        (1997). If these three conditions are met, we may exercise our dis-
        cretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if the error seriously
        aﬀects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial pro-
        ceedings. Id. at 467. To properly preserve a challenge to the suﬃ-
        ciency of the evidence, a defendant must raise the same speciﬁc
        challenges before the district court as he brings on appeal. See
        United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651, 663–64 (11th Cir. 2016).
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1        Date Filed: 12/28/2023   Page: 15 of 21

        22-12385               Opinion of the Court                         15

               To prove aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A,
        the government must show that “the defendant: (1) knowingly
        transferred, possessed, or used; (2) the means of identiﬁcation of
        another person; (3) without lawful authority; (4) during and in re-
        lation to a felony enumerated in § 1028A(c).” United States v. Bar-
        rington, 648 F.3d 1178, 1192 (11th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v.
        Hurtado, 508 F.3d 603, 607 (11th Cir. 2007)).
               Here, because Tyler did not move for judgment of acquittal
        on Count 3 because he did not know Steele was an actual person,
        we review for plain error. And we conclude that the district court
        did not commit plain error, as there was suﬃcient evidence to show
        that Willard Steele was a real person. For example, a jury could
        reasonably conclude that, based on the text messages from the
        phone seized in Tyler’s bedroom, Tyler knew he was dealing with
        real people. Further, BB&T Bank accepted the application for two
        credit cards in Steele’s name. Thus, there is suﬃcient evidence to
        support Tyler’s conviction for aggravated identity theft, and we af-
        ﬁrm as to this issue.
                                           IV.
               Tyler also argues that his conviction for Count 2 should be
        vacated because there was no evidence about the usability of the
        alleged unauthorized access devices recovered from his alleged
        bedroom. The government responds that Tyler failed to make this
        argument below, meaning that the issue is reviewed for plain error.
        And the government argues that there was suﬃcient evidence
        found in Tyler’s bedroom to support the conviction.
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023      Page: 16 of 21

        16                      Opinion of the Court                  22-12385

               For an error to be plain, it must be one that is obvious and
        clear under current law. United States v. Madden, 733 F.3d 1314, 1322
        (11th Cir. 2013). An error is not obvious or clear under current law
        when there is a “lack of controlling authority” or there is “room for
        doubt about the outcome” of an issue. United States v. Humphrey,
        164 F.3d 585, 588 (11th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Thompson,
        82 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir. 1996).
               An individual is guilty of possession of 15 or more “unau-
        thorized access devices” if he possesses such devices knowingly and
        with intent to defraud. 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). An “‘access device’
        means any card, . . . account number, electronic serial number, . . .
        personal identification number, . . . or other means of account ac-
        cess that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access
        device, to obtain money . . . or that can be used to initiate a transfer
        of funds.” Id. § 1029(e)(1). An “‘unauthorized access’ device means
        any access device that is lost, stolen, expired, revoked, canceled, or
        obtained with intent to defraud.” Id. § 1029(e)(3).
                Here, we review for plain error because Tyler did not argue
        in his motion for judgment of acquittal that the government did
        not prove the usability of the access devices. Zitron, 810 F.3d at
        1260. And we conclude that the district court did not commit plain
        error as there was sufficient evidence to support Tyler’s conviction
        for possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices, as nei-
        ther the statute nor binding precedent require proof of the usability
        of the devices. See Humphrey, 164 F.3d at 588. We thus affirm as to
        this issue.
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 17 of 21

        22-12385               Opinion of the Court                        17

                                       V.
               Tyler also argues that the government failed to prove that
        his alleged criminal conduct aﬀected interstate or foreign com-
        merce as to Counts 2 and 4. The government again responds by
        arguing that plain-error review applies because Tyler did not move
        for judgment of acquittal on this basis. The government argues
        that the evidence shows Tyler used fraudulently obtained credit
        cards to make Amazon and other purchases, which aﬀected inter-
        state commerce. The government further argues that the evidence
        shows Tyler’s scheme was broader than just the credit cards, as (1)
        his bedroom contained device-making equipment and dozens of
        debit and credit cards and (2) the messages on his phone contained
        personal identiﬁcation information of individuals not only in Flor-
        ida, but other states as well. Given this, the government asserts that
        a reasonable jury could conclude that Tyler’s device-making equip-
        ment was used to generate fraudulent cards that would aﬀect in-
        terstate commerce.
               Under § 1029(a)(2) and (3), whoever “knowingly and with in-
        tent to defraud traﬃcs in or uses one or more unauthorized access
        devi[c]es during any one-year period, and by such conduct obtains
        anything of value aggregating $1,000 or more during that period”
        or “possesses ﬁfteen or more devices which are counterfeit or un-
        authorized access devices” “shall, if the oﬀense aﬀects interstate
        commerce or foreign commerce,” be punished by a ﬁne or impris-
        onment for not more than ten years, or both. § 1029(a)(2)–(3), (c).
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 18 of 21

        18                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12385

               In the context of 18 U.S.C. § 1028, we have held that “the
        government must prove only a minimal nexus with interstate com-
        merce in a § 1028 prosecution to satisfy the in or aﬀects interstate
        or foreign commerce requirement.” Klopf, 423 F.3d at 1239. “The
        defendant need have had only the intent to accomplish acts, which,
        if successful, would have aﬀected interstate or foreign commerce.”
        Id. And the government “is not required to prove that the defend-
        ant had knowledge of the interstate commerce nexus when he
        committed an act in violation of § 1028(a).” Id. As to § 1029, in
        Klopf, we explained that, as to “the requirement that the access-de-
        vice fraud aﬀect interstate or foreign commerce, credit cards gen-
        erally are issued to applicants by out-of-state ﬁnancial institutions,
        and credit-card account numbers travel across state lines, both elec-
        tronically and by mail.” Id. at 1240. Because the defendant had
        made purchases and withdrawals with the fraudulently obtained
        credit cards, he “engaged in interstate ﬁnancial transactions.” Id.
               Again reviewing for plain error, we conclude that the district
        court did not commit plain error on this issue. As in Klopf, the jury
        could reasonably conclude that Tyler’s criminal conduct involved
        in his convictions for possession of 15 or more unauthorized de-
        vices and possession of access device-making equipment aﬀected
        interstate or foreign commerce. For example, evidence showed
        that Tyler made purchases from the 4117 account from Amazon,
        listed Amazon as being located in Washington, a purchase from
        Tempur Pedic had Kentucky listed as the postal code, and a pur-
        chase from Verizon had California listed. Further, the evidence
        showed that the bank Tyler fraudulently obtained the cards from
USCA11 Case: 22-12385      Document: 44-1       Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 19 of 21

        22-12385                Opinion of the Court                         19

        was based in North Carolina. Because there is suﬃcient evidence
        establishing that Tyler’s conduct aﬀected interstate commerce, we
        aﬃrm as to this issue.
                                          VI.
              Finally, Tyler asserts that the district court plainly erred
        when it gave an aiding and abetting jury instruction.
                Generally, we review the legal accuracy of jury instructions
        de novo. United States v. Prather, 205 F.3d 1265, 1270 (11th Cir. 2000).
        But when the defendant makes no speciﬁc objection to the jury
        charge at trial, we review the claim for plain error. United States v.
        Schlei, 122 F.3d 944, 973 (11th Cir. 1997). We will not reverse a con-
        viction for a defective jury charge unless we are “left with a sub-
        stantial and eradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly
        guided in its deliberations.” United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137,
        1148 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254,
        1260 (11th Cir. 2002)).
                 “When we apply the plain error rule to jury instructions, we
        do not consider the asserted errors in isolation.” United States v.
        Iriele, 977 F.3d 1155, 1178 (11th Cir. 2020). Instead, we consider “the
        totality of the charge as a whole” and determine “whether the po-
        tential harm caused by the jury charge has been neutralized by the
        other instructions given at the trial such that reasonable jurors
        would not have been misled by the error.” Id. (quoting United States
        v. Whyte, 928 F.3d 1317, 1332 (11th Cir. 2019)). “And even if the
        unobjected to error retained some prejudicial impact, reversal still
        may not be warranted.” Id. at 1179. “To show that an instructional
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023     Page: 20 of 21

        20                     Opinion of the Court                 22-12385

        error aﬀected his substantial rights, a defendant must show that the
        error ‘was probably responsible for an incorrect verdict.’” Id. (quot-
        ing Whyte, 928 F.3d at 1332). If the defendant’s guilt would have
        been clear under the correct instruction, he cannot show plain er-
        ror. Id.
                Aiding and abetting is not a separate crime; rather, “[i]t al-
        lows a jury to ﬁnd one guilty of an oﬀense even though he did not
        commit all the acts constituting the elements of the substantive
        crime aided.” United States v. Martin, 747 F.2d 1404, 1407 (11th Cir.
        1984). There is no need to refer to aiding and abetting in the indict-
        ment because “[t]he aiding and abetting theory is not an essential
        element of the oﬀense.” United States v. DePace, 120 F.3d 233, 236
        n.3 (11th Cir. 1997). Instead, it is a theory “upon which criminal
        liability may be based.” United States v. Camacho, 233 F.3d 1308, 1315
        (11th Cir. 2000). It “is an alternative charge in every count, whether
        explicit or implicit.” United States v. Walker, 621 F.2d 163, 166 (5th
        Cir. 1980).
               Here, the district court did not commit plain error when it
        gave an aiding and abetting instruction. The evidence showed that
        Tyler did not commit all the acts himself in making the licenses
        and credit cards because of the text messages with the unidentiﬁed
        username who helped Tyler with the lookups and personal infor-
        mation. And there is no evidence that the aiding and abetting in-
        struction misled the jury in its deliberations or was responsible for
        an incorrect verdict for any of the counts on which Tyler was
        charged, especially given there was suﬃcient evidence to support
USCA11 Case: 22-12385     Document: 44-1      Date Filed: 12/28/2023   Page: 21 of 21

        22-12385              Opinion of the Court                      21

        those convictions. See Puche, 350 F.3d at 1148; Iriele, 977 F.3d at
        1179. Accordingly, we aﬃrm as to this issue.
                                       VII.
              For all these reasons, we aﬃrm Tyler’s convictions.
              AFFIRMED.