United States v. Wytrenia Reynolds ( 2015 )

Case: 15-10606 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10606
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00014-CDL-MSH-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WYTRENIA REYNOLDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(November 18, 2015)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10606 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 2 of 7
Wytrenia Reynolds appeals her convictions for theft of government property
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A, and receipt of stolen treasury checks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 510.
Reynolds argues that the government presented no direct evidence of her guilt and
that no additional evidence corroborates some of the testimony against her.
We normally review de novo whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain
a criminal conviction. United States v. Jiminez, 564 F.3d 1280, 1284 (11th Cir.
2009). However, when a defendant fails to move for a judgment of acquittal or
renew such a motion at the close of all evidence after presenting a defense case, we
affirm unless a “manifest miscarriage of justice” would result. United States v.
Jones, 32 F.3d 1512, 1516 (11th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). Using this
standard, we reverse a conviction only if evidence on a key element is so tenuous
that the conviction is shocking. United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, 1196 (11th
Cir. 2012). In analyzing sufficiency claims, we generally view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government and accept all reasonable inferences and
credibility determinations that support the jury’s verdict. Id.At the close of evidence, Reynolds moved for judgment of acquittal on two
of her theft of government property charges and two of her receipt of stolen
property charges, as well as on two aggravated identity theft charges that the
government then voluntarily dismissed. She did not move at this time for acquittal
2
Case: 15-10606 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 3 of 7
on two of her other theft of government property charges, her two aggravated
identity theft charges, or one of her receipt of stolen property charges. While we
review her sufficiency challenges on this first set of counts de novo, we may
reverse on the second set only if evidence on a key element is so tenuous that the
conviction is shocking. See id. at 1196. In the end, this distinction makes no
difference because Reynolds has not demonstrated that the evidence for any of the
elements of any of these charges was either insufficient for a jury to convict or so
tenuous that her conviction is shocking.
I. Theft of Government Property
Counts 1 through 4 of Reynolds’s indictment allege that Reynolds stole
government property by receiving and negotiating four treasury checks payable to
others. To support a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 641 for theft of government
money or property, the government must prove “(1) that the money or property
belonged to the government; (2) that the defendant fraudulently appropriated the
money or property to his own use or the use of others; (3) and that the defendant
did so knowingly and willfully with the intent either temporarily or permanently to
deprive the owner of the use of the money or property.” United States v. McRee, 7
F.3d 976, 980 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc). Circumstantial evidence can prove the
requisite intent. Id. at 982.
3
Case: 15-10606 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 4 of 7
Count 1 of Reynolds’s indictment alleges the theft or conversion of a
$369,273 treasury check payable to Karole Keith. Keith testified at trial that she
did not know Reynolds or give her permission to cash this check. Counts 2 and 4
allege the theft or conversion of checks payable to Chenwroh Kpan and Adam
Harris. Although Kpan and Harris did not testify at trial, a bank employee told
jurors that Kpan called him to report this check as stolen. In addition, Erica
Montgomery testified extensively about how Reynolds presented her with all three
of these checks and told her to deposit them. Montgomery testified that she gave
Reynolds the cash from both the Kpan and Harris checks. She also testified that
Reynolds called her at least five times demanding the cash from the Keith check.
Montgomery had deposited this check, but the bank never released funds for it.
Count 3 of the indictment alleges the theft of a treasury check payable to Philip and
Catherine Seagraves. Philip Seagraves testified that he and his wife Catherine
neither signed this check nor gave Reynolds permission to cash it. The jury also
heard testimony from George Rowell, owner of Big O’s Package Store, that
Reynolds brought this already-signed check to his store to cash it. In light of this
evidence, the jury had a sufficient basis to find beyond a reasonable doubt that
Reynolds fraudulently appropriated all four of these checks.
Though circumstantial, the evidence was also sufficient to establish that
Reynolds’s conversion of each check was done knowingly. It is true that
4
Case: 15-10606 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 5 of 7
Reynolds’s own testimony contradicted other evidence in the case. But the jury
was entitled to reject her testimony and even to use it to decide her guilt. See
United States v. Brown, 53 F.3d 312, 314 (11th Cir. 1995) (“[A] statement by a
defendant, if disbelieved by the jury, may be considered as substantive evidence of
the defendant’s guilt.”). For example, Reynolds claimed she knew nothing about
Montgomery depositing a $369,6732 check payable to Karole Keith. But the jury
was entitled to discredit this statement or to treat it as evidence of guilt in light of
testimony that Reynolds was standing with Montgomery as Montgomery deposited
the check and as the bank teller made special arrangements through a supervisor to
process such a large check. Likewise, though Reynolds claimed she knew nothing
about the Kpan and Harris checks, the jury saw photographs of Reynolds and
Montgomery standing at a teller station processing these checks. The jury also
heard from testimony that Montgomery received over $10,000 for these checks in
Reynolds’s presence. Based on this evidence, the jury had a sufficient basis to find
that Reynolds knowingly stole or converted the four checks that formed the basis
for her theft of government property charges.
II. Aggravated Identity Theft
Counts 5 and 7 of Reynolds’s indictment allege that she used the names and
signatures of Karole Keith and Philip and Catherine Seagraves without their
authority. The aggravated identity theft statute prohibits the knowing transfer,
5
Case: 15-10606 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 6 of 7
possession, or use without lawful authority of “a means of identification of another
person” during and in relation to a felony violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641, the theft of
government property statute. 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), (c)(1). “[T]he term ‘means
of identification’ means any name or number that may be used, alone or in
conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including
any . . . name, social security number, [or] date of birth.” Id. § 1028(d)(7). We
have held that “the use of someone’s name and forged signature on a United States
Treasury check sufficiently identifies a specific individual to qualify as a ‘means of
identification’ under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A.” United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298,
1310 (11th Cir. 2015).
Reynolds argues that the government presented no proof that she possessed a
driver’s license or other means of identification bearing another person’s signature
or personal identification. But the jury certainly heard evidence that she
misappropriated names and signatures. Keith testified that she did not give
Reynolds permission to use her signature and that the signature on the check was
not hers. Similarly, Philip Seagraves testified that the signature on his check
belonged to neither him nor his wife. Montgomery and Rowell testified that
Reynolds gave them both these checks with the names and signatures already on
them. Based on this testimony and the other evidence presented at trial, the jury
6
Case: 15-10606 Date Filed: 11/18/2015 Page: 7 of 7
had a sufficient basis to find that Reynolds misappropriated names and signatures
without authority in relation to the theft of government property.
III. Receipt of Stolen Treasury Checks
Counts 9, 10, and 11 charge Reynolds with receiving stolen treasury checks
payable to Adam Harris, Karole Keith, and Chenwroh Kpan. These charges were
based on a statute that prohibits receiving, delivering, or retaining a United States
Treasury check with both the intent to defraud and the knowledge that the check
“is stolen or bears a falsely made or forged endorsement or signature.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 510(b). Reynolds argues that the jury did not hear enough evidence that she
personally possessed the checks listed in these counts. To the contrary,
Montgomery testified that Reynolds personally gave her each of these checks and
asked her to cash them. Montgomery also testified that all three checks were
signed when she received them. Based on this testimony and the other evidence
presented at trial, the jury had a sufficient basis to find that Reynolds had
knowledge of the forged signatures on these checks and acted with the intent to
defraud when she gave Montgomery the checks and asked her to cash them.
IV. CONCLUSION
This jury heard sufficient evidence to find Reynolds guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of all the charges for which she was convicted. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
7