United States v. Anika Greene
681 F. App'x 194
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Anika N. Greene was convicted by a jury of conspiracy (bank/wire fraud, access device fraud) and three counts of aggravated identity theft; sentenced to concurrent terms (24 months for identity theft counts, 18 months on others, consecutive across types).
- On appeal Greene challenged (1) admission of evidence about an uncharged Chanel credit-card fraud, (2) sufficiency of evidence for aggravated identity theft convictions, and (3) a two-level Guidelines enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10).
- The district court admitted the Chanel evidence as intrinsic and alternatively under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); Greene preserved only the intrinsic-evidence challenge on appeal.
- The government relied on co-conspirator testimony and limited cell-phone location data to link Greene to specific incidents of fraud in August 2013.
- The panel found insufficient evidence to support Count Five (Home Depot identity theft on Aug. 2, 2013) but sufficient evidence to support Counts Six and Seven (Ashland trip on Aug. 30, 2013) based on co-conspirator testimony that Greene drove conspirators with knowledge of the fraud purpose.
- The panel affirmed the § 2B1.1(b)(10) two-level enhancement based on relocation of the scheme out of state to evade detection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged Chanel fraud evidence | Greene: admission was improper; evidence prejudicial | Government/District Court: evidence intrinsic and alternatively admissible under Rule 404(b) | Waived on appeal for failing to challenge Rule 404(b) rationale; no preserved error |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count Five (Home Depot identity theft) | Greene: insufficient proof she used another’s ID or knew it belonged to a real person; phone data weak | Government: location and conspiracy inference establish participation | Reversed as to Count Five — insufficient evidence (no proof of Greene’s knowledge/state of mind or membership at that time) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Counts Six & Seven (Ashland trip identity thefts) | Greene: challenges knowledge/participation | Government: co-conspirator testified Greene drove, knew purpose, and conspirators possessed victims’ PII | Affirmed — sufficient evidence to support convictions (aiding and abetting; reasonable inference of knowledge) |
| Sentencing enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10) | Greene: driving conspirators out of state not "sophisticated means" | Government/District Court: enhancement applies under relocation prong and/or sophisticated means | Affirmed — two-level enhancement appropriate under relocation provision |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991 (4th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for admissibility decisions)
- Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895 (4th Cir. 2015) (failure to challenge alternate ground waives issue on appeal)
- United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129 (4th Cir. 2013) (de novo review for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2012) (high burden for sufficiency challenges)
- United States v. Adepoju, 756 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2014) (elements of aggravated identity theft require knowledge that ID belonged to another)
- Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946) (co-conspirator liability for foreseeable substantive offenses)
- United States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2010) (application of Pinkerton doctrine)
- United States v. Clark, 668 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 2012) (inference that defendants knew bank accounts belonged to real persons)
- United States v. Horton, 693 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2012) (review standards for Guidelines factual findings)