Case: 18-14191 Date Filed: 08/22/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-14191
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cr-00014-RV-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BENELL ENGLISH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(August 22, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, WILLIAM PRYOR and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 18-14191 Date Filed: 08/22/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Benell English appeals his 18 convictions for aiding or assisting in the
preparation of false tax returns. 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). English argues that the
evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We affirm.
We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence and view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the government by making reasonable inferences and
credibility choices consistent with the jury’s verdict. United States v. Garcia,
405
F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). The evidence does not need to “exclude every
reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every
conclusion except that of guilt.” United States v. Faust,
456 F.3d 1342, 1345 (11th
Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Harris,
20 F.3d 445, 453 (11th Cir. 1994)).
We must affirm “unless, under no reasonable construction of the evidence, could
the jury have found the [defendant] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Garcia,
405 F.3d at 1269.
Ample evidence supported English’s convictions. The government
submitted testimony and tax returns that proved English willfully and knowingly
aided or assisted in preparing federal income tax returns containing material
statements that he knew were false. See United States v. Kottwitz,
614 F.3d 1241,
1269 (11th Cir.), opinion withdrawn in part on other grounds,
627 F.3d 1383,
1384 (11th Cir. 2010). Eight taxpayers whose tax returns formed the basis for
2
Case: 18-14191 Date Filed: 08/22/2019 Page: 3 of 4
English’s charges testified that he prepared tax returns for them that reported false
income and expenses from businesses they never said they owned and that
contained false medical and dental expenses and charitable deductions they never
asked him to claim. See United States v. Daniels,
617 F.2d 146, 149 (5th Cir. 1980)
(“consistency of . . . [a] practice . . . [can] establish the essential inference of
willful intent” in tax fraud). Seven of the taxpayers testified that they never
reviewed their completed tax returns and trusted that English had prepared correct
returns, while retiree Regena Brown testified that she noticed false information on
her tax return and that English assured her she would not get in trouble for
requesting a false tax refund. English argues that the taxpayers’ testimonies were
incredible as a matter of law, but their accounts were plausible, coherent, and
consistent. See United States v. Flores,
572 F.3d 1254, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009)
(“Testimony is only ‘incredible’ if it relates to ‘facts that the witness could not
have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of
nature.’”). English also prepared a false tax return for an undercover agent of the
Internal Revenue Service who recorded English instructing her to “make up [her]
income,” a practice that an accountant with English’s education, years of
experience, and familiarity with tax laws would never countenance. Although
English explained his actions with respect to each tax return, the jury was entitled
3
Case: 18-14191 Date Filed: 08/22/2019 Page: 4 of 4
to disbelieve English and treat his testimony as substantive evidence of his guilt.
See United States v. Brown,
53 F.3d 312, 314-15 (11th Cir. 1995).
We AFFIRM English’s convictions.
4
