United States v. Griggs ( 2023 )

Case: 23-10083 Document: 00516924523 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/09/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10083
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ October 9, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Raymond Griggs,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:20-CR-87-1
______________________________
Before Willett, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Raymond Griggs was convicted by a jury of one count of making a false
statement on his income tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). He
maintains that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his
conviction. Because Griggs preserved his sufficiency challenge, our review
is de novo. See United States v. Warren, 986 F.3d 557, 562 (5th Cir. 2021).
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10083 Document: 00516924523 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/09/2023
No. 23-10083
To establish a violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1), the Government had
to provide enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Griggs: (1)
made and signed a “materially false” income tax return; (2) submitted a
written declaration that the tax return was true and correct under penalties
of perjury; (3) did not believe that the tax return was true and correct when
he signed it; and (4) “signed it willfully and with the specific intent to violate
the law.” United States v. Boyd, 773 F.3d 637, 644 (5th Cir. 2014). Griggs
asserts that the evidence offered at trial did not establish that he signed, or
directed anyone else to sign, his 2013 tax return at issue.
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government
and with all reasonable inferences made in favor of the verdict, supported the
conviction. See id.; United States v. Holmes, 406 F.3d 337, 351 (5th Cir. 2005).
“To uphold the conviction, there is no requirement that the evidence
exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence.” United States v. Zamora-
Salazar, 860 F.3d 826, 832 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). The Government presented evidence that Griggs owned
and operated a tax preparation business, that he had previously been audited,
and that Griggs’s assistant helped him prepare his tax returns. It was thus
reasonable for the jury to believe that he “would not let tax time come and go
without either making and filing his own return or authorizing someone to do
it for him.” United States v. Ponder, 444 F.2d 816, 822 (5th Cir. 1971). The
jury was free to choose among the reasonable constructions of the evidence,
which included those consistent with Griggs’s guilt. See Zamora-Salazar,
860 F.3d at 832.
Griggs further argues that because he did not “sign” the 2013 tax
return, the Government could not prove that he willfully violated § 7206(1).
To prove willfulness, the Government must show “that the law imposed a
duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty, and that he
voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.” Boyd, 773 F.3d at 644
2
Case: 23-10083 Document: 00516924523 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/09/2023
No. 23-10083
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In the context of a § 7206(1)
conviction, this court has stated that “evidence of a consistent pattern of
under reporting large amounts of income will support the necessary inference
of willfulness.” United States v. Stokes, 998 F.2d 279, 281 (5th Cir. 1993).
The evidence established that Griggs engaged in a pattern of under reporting
large sources of his income on his tax returns for a period of years. As owner
of a tax preparation business and because he had previously been audited, the
jury could infer that Griggs was aware of the importance of his income tax
returns being correct. It could also infer that he knew about the finances of
his business and was aware that large portions of the gross receipts were not
reflected on his tax returns. Accordingly, the record reflects that a jury could
have plausibly found that the Government presented evidence that Griggs
willfully engaged in a pattern of under reporting his income. See id.; Boyd,
773 F.3d at 644.
The evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom, viewed in the
light most favorable to the verdict, supports that a rational trier of fact could
have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Griggs willfully made false
statements on his 2013 tax return. See Boyd, 773 F.3d at 644; Holmes, 406F.3d at 351. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
3