United States v. Tony Archie

Case: 17-13419 Date Filed: 03/26/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-13419
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-00338-MHC-CMS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
TONY ARCHIE
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(March 26, 2019)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Case: 17-13419 Date Filed: 03/26/2019 Page: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
We have had the benefit of oral argument in this case, and have carefully
reviewed the briefs and relevant parts of the record. We conclude that the
judgment of the district court must be affirmed.
Archie challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to all of his
convictions. For reasons fully explored at oral argument, we reject Archie’s
challenge, which focuses primarily on his asserted lack of knowledge that the
cellphones at issue were fraudulently acquired. We conclude that there was very
strong evidence both of actual knowledge on the part of Archie, and very strong
evidence (primarily from the testimony of co-conspirator Floarea) that Archie and
Floarea tried to minimize their knowledge of the origin of the fraudulently
obtained cellphones in order to avoid criminal charges. Three of Archie’s co-
conspirators testified against him at trial, including Floarea who testified that he
trained Archie with respect to the fraudulent operations. In addition, there was
evidence from an undercover law enforcement agent, and extensive documentary
evidence that the jury could find would clearly have alerted Archie to suspect that
his co-conspirators, Capote, Tirtawijaya, and Patel, were supplying him with
suspiciously large volumes of new cellphones which were fraudulently obtained.
Thus, there was ample evidence to support the conspiracy charge and the
substantive wire fraud and mail fraud counts.
2
Case: 17-13419 Date Filed: 03/26/2019 Page: 3 of 4
Similarly, we reject Archie’s sufficiency challenges to the money laundering
counts. For the same reasons, there is no merit in Archie’s assertions of lack of
knowledge that the Westside bank account funds were derived from unlawful
activities. And, with respect to Counts 18–21, there is no merit in Archie’s
argument that his payments to Capote for the fraudulent cellphones he supplied
were not made to promote the fraud.
Archie’s challenges to the jury instructions are also wholly without merit.
The district court appropriately instructed the jury with respect to deliberate
ignorance, because there was ample evidence that co-conspirator Floarea and
Archie tried to minimize their knowledge of the origins of the fraudulently
obtained cellphones in order to avoid criminal charges; and there was also ample
evidence of actual knowledge on the part of Archie. See United States v. Arias,
984 F.2d 1139, 1143 (11th Cir. 1993) (“[W]here the evidence supports both actual
knowledge and deliberate ignorance, the instruction is properly given.”) (citation
and internal quotations omitted). The district court also properly declined to give
Archie’s request for an instruction on multiple conspiracies. The evidence at trial
overwhelmingly supported a single overarching conspiracy, and did not support the
hypothetical separate conspiracies about which Archie’s brief speculates. The
single overarching conspiracy began when Archie was managing Ace Wholesale
and continued after Ace closed, and Archie and Capote, with advice and training
3
Case: 17-13419 Date Filed: 03/26/2019 Page: 4 of 4
from Floarea, opened Westside Wireless. Westside was a mere continuation of
the conspiracy that began using Ace as the storefront, with the continued major
involvement of Floarea and major suppliers of fraudulently obtained cellphones
including co-conspirators Capote, Tirtawijaya, and Patel. Finally, Archie’s
challenge to the instruction with respect to the 18 U.S.C. §1349 conspiracy is
probably waived, and in any event is not reversible error, see United States v.
Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 964 (11th Cir. 2015) (noting that § 1349 does not require
proof of an overt act).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. 1
1
Any other arguments asserted on appeal by Archie are rejected without need for further
discussion.
4