United States v. Darwin Moore ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                            In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615
    U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    D ARWIN P. M OORE and B RUCE E. K NUTSON,
    Defendants-Appellants.
    Appeals from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Wisconsin.
    No. 07 CR 25—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.
    A RGUED JANUARY 15, 2009—D ECIDED A PRIL 21, 2009
    Before R IPPLE, M ANION, and E VANS, Circuit Judges.
    E VANS, Circuit Judge. The date: April 14, 2005. The
    time: 6 p.m. The place: Ho-Chunk casino in Baraboo,
    Wisconsin. The event: a drawing to determine who
    would walk off with $10,000. Undoubtedly, excitement
    was in the air. Realistically, the average schlemiel had
    only a .000067 percent chance of winning. But another
    participant in the drawing had to like his chances: Bruce
    2                                  Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615
    Knutson had a 30 percent chance of coming up a winner.
    And when the winning entry form was pulled from the
    barrel—ta da—the winner was Bruce Knutson! The
    lucky winner then posed for a publicity picture, signed off
    on a tax form, received a check for $5,000, and pocketed
    $5,000 in cash. It was, we suspect, a night to remember.
    But all was not, as we shall see, quite as it seemed. The
    rest of the story explains why Knutson and his buddy,
    Darwin Moore, are here appealing their convictions
    after they were found guilty of bilking the casino out of
    $10,000.
    This case started with Ho-Chunk’s “Tax Time Blues
    Giveaway,” a drawing, which awarded five lucky casino
    patrons—one every hour starting at 6:00 p.m.—with a
    $10,000 prize. To earn entry forms, the written rules
    stated that patrons had to register at the guest service
    booth, where they would receive their first form. After
    that, gamblers could get additional entry forms for
    every 50 points they earned at the slot machines or every
    hour they spent playing blackjack. Although not
    explicitly stated, some casino staff could also hand out
    extra entries at their discretion. The official rules were
    silent about counterfeiting entry forms. The casino ac-
    cepted entries for six weeks and the drawing, as the
    name of the contest suggests, was held the day before
    the April 15 tax-filing deadline.
    Knutson and Moore heard about the drawing and set
    about to win it. With the help of Moore’s then-girlfriend,
    Grace Hewitt, the two hatched a plan to make their own
    entry forms and stuff the promotional barrels to up their
    Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615                                   3
    odds of winning. They purchased orange stock paper to
    match the forms handed out by the casino and used
    Moore’s copier to produce fake entry forms. But Moore
    and Hewitt were no Bonnie and Clyde. Weeks before
    the drawing the two split, and Hewitt decided to exact
    some revenge. She snitched on Knutson and Moore,
    telling casino authorities about the scheme, even pro-
    viding them with a few of the bogus entry forms. The
    fake forms were easily identifiable because the water-
    mark on the casino’s form became pixelated after it was
    photocopied.
    After receiving this tip, an investigator kept an eye on
    Knutson and Moore when they entered the casino and,
    over the course of a week, observed both men drop multi-
    ple entry forms into the drawing barrels. They would
    stagger their submissions, depositing the forms at dif-
    ferent times throughout the evening.
    On the night of the drawing, one of Knutson’s entries
    was the first one pulled from the barrel. He filled out all
    the necessary paperwork to claim his prize and provided
    the casino with his social security number and drivers
    license number. After the drawing, Ho-Chunk’s investiga-
    tor went through the entries and discovered that
    Knutson (4,710) and Moore (4,645) together submitted
    9,355 of the approximately 15,000 entry forms. So
    together, the two had 62 percent of the total entries in
    the drawing. The thousands of other participants had the
    other 38 percent. And according to the casino’s data-
    base, Knutson and Moore “earned” only 23 entries through
    their gambling.
    4                                     Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615
    The Wisconsin Department of Justice eventually
    stepped in and sent two agents to interview Knutson and
    Moore. During the interview, both claimed that they
    had submitted only a couple hundred forms, on several
    occasions, explaining that they would pick up extra entry
    forms they found in the casino or submit forms they
    had received from patrons who came to the casino on
    tour buses. Since entrants had to be present at the
    drawing to claim the prize, these out-of-town patrons
    were presumably willing to give up their entry forms.
    When asked if they had manufactured their own forms,
    they denied doing so, emphasizing that they had not
    submitted any forms that were photocopied.
    Knutson and Moore were eventually indicted for con-
    spiring to violate 
    18 U.S.C. § 1167
    (b), which penalizes
    anyone who “abstracts, purloins, wilfully misapplies, or
    takes and carries away with intent to steal” money that
    belongs to a gaming establishment run by an Indian tribe.
    
    18 U.S.C. § 371
    . The defendants waived their right to a
    jury trial and the case proceeded to a bench trial. The
    district court found both defendants guilty. Each re-
    ceived a sentence of 10 months. They were also ordered
    to pay back the $10,000.
    Knutson and Moore begin by attacking the indictment.
    They assert that it is insufficient because, in their view,
    the allegations that they stuffed the barrels with counter-
    feit entry forms fail to state an offense. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
    7(c)(1); 12(b)(3)(B). They claim they were merely trying
    to increase their odds of winning, which, they contend,
    is not illegal. They were unsuccessful in asserting this
    Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615                                    5
    same argument in a motion to dismiss before the magis-
    trate judge who recommended that the district court
    deny the motion. Receiving no objections from the defen-
    dants, the district court adopted the recommendation.
    A failure to object to a magistrate judge’s recommenda-
    tions constitutes a waiver, which would ordinarily pre-
    clude our review. See United States v. Hall, 
    462 F.3d 684
    ,
    688 (7th Cir. 2006). But here, the government has “waived
    waiver” by asserting that we can review the decision
    de novo. See United States v. Murphy, 
    406 F.3d 857
    , 860
    (7th Cir. 2005).
    Everything we have said so far is prelude to a pretty
    straightforward conclusion—the indictment is easily
    sufficient. An indictment need not say much to be
    deemed sufficient—it must: (1) state all the elements of
    the crime charged; (2) adequately apprise the defendants
    of the nature of the charges so that they may prepare a
    defense; and (3) allow the defendant to plead the judg-
    ment as a bar to any future prosecutions. United States
    v. Castaldi, 
    547 F.3d 699
    , 703 (7th Cir. 2008). What’s
    more, we look at the indictment as a whole, focusing on
    a practical, rather than a hypertechnical, reading of the
    document.
    Here, the indictment notes the statutory bases for the
    conspiracy count, listing the elements of the crime. It also
    provides, with quite a bit of detail, the factual backdrop
    of the scheme. It explained how gamblers could earn
    forms and how Knutson and Moore took “steps to win
    the Tax Times Blues Giveaway by cheating, that is, by
    stuffing the promotion barrels with counterfeit entry
    6                                    Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615
    forms.” The indictment also explains that Knutson and
    Moore purchased bright orange paper from a local Office
    Max, stuffed the drawing with over 9,000 fake forms,
    and recruited two others (two unsuspecting Knutson
    relatives) to help submit bogus entries. This factual back-
    drop gave the defendants plenty of ammunition to
    prepare their defense and was specific enough to avoid
    any later double jeopardy concerns.
    But the defendants still urge that the indictment was
    defective, since, in their view, they had only exploited a
    loophole in the rules—they note in particular that the
    rules did not specifically prohibit their behavior and
    that casino staff members handed out entry forms in
    ways not enumerated in the rules. But when evaluating
    the sufficiency of an indictment, we focus on its allega-
    tions, which we accept as true. United States v. Vitillo, 
    490 F.3d 314
    , 320-21 (3d Cir. 2007); United States v. Todd, 
    446 F.3d 1062
    , 1067 (10th Cir. 2006); United States v. Sharpe, 
    438 F.3d 1257
    , 1258-59 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Boren,
    
    278 F.3d 911
    , 914 (9th Cir. 2002). “Challenging an indict-
    ment is not a means of testing the strength or weakness
    of the government’s case, or the sufficiency of the govern-
    ment’s evidence.” Todd, 466 F.3d at 1067. The precise
    wording of the rules and the casino’s enforcement of
    those rules were not mentioned in the indictment.
    Whether Knutson and Moore broke the rules or just
    took advantage of a technicality is a question of fact that
    could not be decided without a trial.
    At this stage, our inquiry is narrow. We must decide
    whether it’s possible to view the conduct alleged as an
    Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615                                      7
    agreement to steal $10,000 from the casino. And we have
    no problem concluding that Knutson’s and Moore’s
    behavior—stuffing the promotional barrels with over
    9,000 fake entries, exponentially increasing their odds of
    winning—can only be construed as a tricky scheme to
    dupe the casino out of its money. The “Tax Time Blues
    Giveaway” created incentives for gambling. The drawing
    rewarded patrons who spent a lot of time (presumably
    losing money) at the slots or blackjack tables with an
    increased chance of winning the prize money. By
    stuffing the barrels with counterfeit entries, Knutson and
    Moore subverted this purpose and deprived Ho-Chunk
    of a fundamental right of ownership—that is, the right
    to give away its money the way it wanted to do.
    To the extent that Knutson and Moore rely on facts
    outside of the indictment, they are really arguing that
    there was insufficient evidence to support their convic-
    tions. This argument is an uphill battle—we review the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the government
    and will reverse only if no rational trier of fact could
    have found the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable
    doubt. United States v. Knox, 
    540 F.3d 708
    , 719 (7th Cir.
    2008). To find the defendants guilty, the government had
    to prove that Knutson and Moore agreed to abstract,
    purloin, or take away with intent to steal the casino’s
    money. 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 371
    , 1167(b); United States v. Soy,
    
    454 F.3d 766
    , 768 (7th Cir. 2006).
    Under this deferential standard, Knutson and Moore’s
    challenge fails. It is true that the rules do not specifically
    prohibit the submission of fake (especially thousands of
    8                                    Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615
    them!) entry forms, but that does not mean the casino
    condoned counterfeiting. As the Latin lovers might say,
    expressio unius est exclusio alterius—that is, by listing the
    proper avenues for receiving entry forms, one should
    logically infer that the casino meant to exclude others
    avenues. The defendants note that the rules had some
    wiggle room: additional entry forms could be handed
    out by the casino’s staff. But in all instances the forms
    came from the casino, they were not bogus forms. By
    counterfeiting thousands of entry forms, Knutson and
    Moore set out, by trickery, to take $10,000 of the casino’s
    money, and such chicanery is prohibited by § 1167(b). See,
    e.g., Bell v. United States, 
    462 U.S. 356
    , 360 (1983) (holding
    that 
    18 U.S.C. § 2113
    (b), which prohibits taking and
    carrying away, with intent to steal or purloin money
    from a bank, includes theft by false pretenses, i.e., acquir-
    ing title to property through trickery).
    The defendants maintain that they were open and
    honest about their behavior—they used their real names
    on the forms and Knutson gave the casino his real name
    and social security number to claim the prize—which,
    they contend, belies any intent to steal from the casino.
    But the duo had to accurately provide this information
    to collect the prize money, so this honesty says little
    about their intentions. Meanwhile, their other behavior
    suggests that they knew they were up to no good. They
    furtively staggered the submission of the fake forms
    over multiple days and asked two other people to help
    stuff the barrels. During the investigation they con-
    tinued to obfuscate their conduct by denying that they
    had created the entries. Instead, they claimed to have
    Nos. 08-1177 & 08-1615                                   9
    submitted forms that they found lying around or had
    received from other casino patrons who weren’t going
    to be present for the drawing. Looking at this evidence
    in the light most favorable to the government, it is
    enough to sustain its burden.
    Accordingly, we A FFIRM the judgment of the district
    court. The stays of the defendants’ sentences are dis-
    solved and the case remanded to the district court so it
    can set a date for the defendants to report for the service
    of their sentences.
    4-21-09