United States v. Adam Boswell

Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-14481
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00077-ACC-GJK-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ADAM BOSWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 12, 2013)
Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 5
Adam Blake Boswell appeals his convictions for six counts of wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and two counts of transportation of property
obtained through fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314. He presents one issue:
whether the District Court committed plain error in failing to enter a judgment of
acquittal sua sponte at the close of all the evidence.
Ordinarily, we review de novo whether sufficient evidence supports a
conviction, drawing all reasonable factual inferences from the evidence in favor of
the verdict. United States v. Beckles, 565 F.3d 832, 840 (11th Cir. 2009).
Evidence is sufficient if a reasonable trier of fact could find that it established guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. However, where, as here, the defendant
unsuccessfully moves for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s
case in chief, then presents evidence in his own defense and thereafter fails to
renew the motion for judgment of acquittal, we will reverse his conviction only if
there is a “manifest miscarriage of justice,” such that “the evidence on a key
element of the offense is so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.” United
States v. Schier, 438 F.3d 1104, 1107 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).
Moreover, where the defendant raises a sufficiency argument on appeal that was
not specifically raised below, we review that issue for plain error. United States v.
Joseph, 709 F.3d 1082, 1103 (11th Cir. 2013). Plain error is: (1) an error; (2) that
is plain; and (3) affects substantial rights; but only if (4) the error seriously affects
2
Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 3 of 5
the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v.
Turner, 474 F.3d 1265, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007).
Wire fraud is a crime which punishes anyone who:
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 . . . communication in interstate or foreign
commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or
sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or
artifice . . . .
18 U.S.C. § 1343. The elements of wire fraud are thus: (1) intentional
participation in a scheme to defraud, and (2) the use of interstate wires in
furtherance of the scheme. United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th
Cir. 2009).
It is also illegal for a person to “transport[], transmit[], or transfer[] in
interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or
money, of the value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen,
converted or taken by fraud . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 2314. Even though it is not
explicitly stated in the statute, it is also a violation of § 2314 to cause the
transportation of a qualifying good or item. United States v. Block, 755 F.2d 770,
774 (11th Cir. 1985).
The fraud underpinning Boswell’s convictions in this case occurred through
his participation on eBay. In March 2008, eBay user “goingfast3,” which was
3
Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 4 of 5
registered to Boswell, listed 110 groups of Krugerrand gold coins for auction.
Boswell received payment from the auction winners and spent their money, but he
did not send them the coins.
In appealing his convictions for the § 2314 offenses, Boswell only argues
that there was insufficient evidence linking him to the fraud. He correctly observes
that none of his victims saw him in person. He ignores, however, the evidence that
he used the proceeds of the fraud to purchase real estate. Since the jury was
entitled to rely on such evidence, he has not demonstrated that a manifest
miscarriage of justice would result if we affirmed § 2314 convictions.
As to the § 1343 wire fraud offenses, Boswell argues, for the first time on
appeal, that there was not enough evidence to establish that he intended to defraud
the victims, because the victims never actually sent him any money. The act
constituting the wire fraud was Boswell’s inducement of the victims’ electronic
bids through a fraudulent listing on eBay, a website where users can list items for
auction and other users can place electronic bids on those items. By listing South
African gold Krugerrands for auction, Boswell solicited bids, and the high bidder
expected to receive the coins. The fact that Boswell did not have the coins, or, if
he did, that he did not intend to send the coins to the victims, was established by
the testimony and evidence of numerous other victims who bid on Boswell’s eBay
auctions during the same time period. The fact that one witness testified that he
4
Case: 12-14481 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 5 of 5
received Krugerrands bought from Boswell in an eBay auction a month earlier
failed to establish that the jury’s verdicts were not based upon inferences
reasonably drawn from the evidence. In sum, sustaining the § 1342 convictions
would not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
AFFIRMED.
5