United States v. Rondell Scott Hedrick ( 2016 )

Case: 15-14126 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14126
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cr-00228-MJG-MCR -1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONDELL SCOTT HEDRICK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 3, 2016)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-14126 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 2 of 6
Defendant-Appellee Rondell Hedrick appeals from a final judgment of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denying Hedrick’s
motion for a judgment of acquittal as to the charge of having committed wire fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. 1 Hedrick argues on appeal that the district court
erred in denying his motion because the Government failed as a matter of law to
prove the accusation beyond a reasonable doubt. After careful review of the briefs
and relevant parts of the record, we affirm.
This case arises out of a criminal indictment filed on December 18, 2013
charging that Hedrick engaged in a scheme and artifice to defraud by means of an
internet website advertising various purported investment opportunities, including
an investment into world gold markets, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. The
indictment charged that, among other false representations, the website advertised
that Hedrick’s corporation, Hedrick Consulting, Inc., bought gold in any quantity
for cash in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Accra, Ghana, and other places. As part
of this scheme, Hedrick pitched a purportedly profitable international gold
1
Section 1343 provides in relevant part that:
“Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or
artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of
false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,
transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or
television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any
writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of
executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
18 U.S.C. § 1343.
2
Case: 15-14126 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 3 of 6
investment opportunity to a Confidential Source (“CS”) who held himself out as a
principal of a charitable organization. Hedrick allegedly made numerous false
representations to the CS, including that Hedrick regularly buys gold and has
business relationships with gold mines and precious metals refineries throughout
the world. Hedrick communicated with the CS via cellular telephone and email to
discuss the proposed gold investment scheme and to send documents including a
Promissory Note and a Purchase and Sales Agreement to attempt to consummate
the CS’s investment of $500,000.00. After meeting with the CS at a hotel in
Jacksonville, Florida to close the deal, Hedrick was confronted by law
enforcement.
Hedrick’s indictment led to a jury trial held October 20–23, 2014. Following
the close of the Government’s case-in-chief, Hedrick moved for a judgment of
acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a). The district court
denied the motion without prejudice. At the close of evidence, Hedrick renewed
his motion pursuant to Rule 29(a). The district court again denied the motion. The
jury returned a verdict finding Hedrick guilty as charged.
We evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, reviewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable
inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict. United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273,
1278 (11th Cir. 2003). “If there is a lack of substantial evidence . . . from which a
3
Case: 15-14126 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 4 of 6
reasonable fact-finder could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the conversion
must be reversed.” United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 656 (11th Cir.
1990). However, this Court “will affirm a conviction so long as ‘any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.’” United States v. Croteau, 2016 WL 1399456, at *8 (11th Cir. Apr. 11,
2016) (quoting United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 744 (11th Cir. 2008)). We
review the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo.
United States v. Descent, 292 F.3d 703, 706 (11th Cir. 2002).
To prove wire fraud in violation of § 1343, the government must show
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally (1) participated in a
scheme or artifice to defraud; and (2) used the interstate wires to carry out that
scheme. United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1320 (11th Cir. 2011). A
scheme to defraud requires proof of material misrepresentations, or the omission or
concealment of material facts. United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270–71
(11th Cir. 2003). A material misrepresentation is one having a natural tendency to
influence, or capable of influencing, the decision maker to whom it is addressed.
Id. at 1271 (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 25 (1999)). We have held
that the mail fraud statute— and hence the wire fraud statute—prohibits “any
scheme or artifice to defraud,” no matter how fanciful and without regard to
whether a person of ordinary prudence and comprehension would rely upon the
4
Case: 15-14126 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 5 of 6
misrepresentation. United States v. Svete, 556 F.3d 1157, 1169 (11th Cir. 2009)
(en banc) (emphasis in original); see also United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213,
1239 n.57 (11th Cir. 2011).
Hedrick argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence as a matter of
law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of committing wire
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Specifically, while Hedrick admits that he
used interstate wire transmissions for the purpose of communicating with the CS
with regards to the proposed gold investment scheme at issue, he claims that the
Government failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that that the transaction was
fraudulent or that he possessed the requisite intent to defraud. In brief, Hedrick
insists that he cannot be found guilty of committing wire fraud because he had full
intention to carry through with the proposed gold investment scheme.
We disagree. The record contains ample evidence to support a finding that
that Hedrick intentionally participated in a scheme to defraud in violation of §
1343. The record shows that Hedrick made numerous misrepresentations
calculated at influencing the CS to invest in gold through his consulting firm. For
instance, Hedrick represented himself as an established and successful
international gold dealer who had completed “hundreds of joint ventures” in
various investment categories and that he had completed enough large-quantity
gold deals to make gold-dealing his “primary” business. In fact, Hedrick had
5
Case: 15-14126 Date Filed: 10/03/2016 Page: 6 of 6
completed no such deals. Indeed, Hedrick admitted that had never bought as much
as a kilogram of gold. Hedrick also claimed to have an established banking
relationship with Soleil Chartered Bank, off-shore earnings, a license, gold in
Liberia, “people on the ground” in West Africa, his own plane, and a reputation for
conducting “ground buys in Accra.” All of this was simply false. Even if we were
to credit Hedrick’s argument on appeal that he ultimately intended to go through
with the proposed gold investment, the calculated use of these material
misrepresentations to induce the CS to enter into the transaction was itself a
scheme or artifice to defraud. We therefore have no difficulty holding that there
was sufficient evidence to convict.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
6