United States v. Jonathan Boyd
447 F. App'x 684
6th Cir.2011Background
- Boyd was convicted in a multi-count indictment of conspiracy to defraud financial institutions and commit wire fraud, two counts of tax evasion, and two counts of wire fraud, with sentences totaling 72 months on wire fraud and 60 months on conspiracy/tax-evasion counts running concurrently.
- Boyd conspired with Donald Green to sell Green’s vacant, distressed properties to novice investors at inflated prices, aided by inflated property appraisals and financing arrangements.
- Boyd assisted a buyer, Regina Dravis, by including false rental income on loan applications for properties that were actually vacant and in poor condition; Green funded the down payments and later recouped funds at closings, with Boyd receiving a fee.
- Between April 2, 2003, and March 17, 2004, the scheme resulted in 17 property sales and $2,078,700 disbursed by 12 financial institutions.
- Boyd also failed to report $155,502.39 (2003) and $37,757.97 (2004) in income, and did not report capital gains from the scheme to the IRS.
- Prior to trial, the district court dismissed several counts, and the jury convicted Boyd on the conspiracy (count 3), income tax evasion (counts 6-7), and wire fraud (counts 29-32).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a constructive amendment of the indictment | Boyd argues the trial evidence and jury instructions effectively amended counts 29 and 32. | Boyd contends the variance from the Michigan origin to the interstate transfers altered the charges. | No constructive amendment; variance did not prejudice nor alter essential elements. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying Rule 29 judgment of acquittal on identification | The government failed to produce in-court identification of Boyd as the perpetrator. | Identification can be proven by circumstantial evidence; direct in-court ID is not required. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported identification; no error in denying Rule 29 relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beasley v. United States, 583 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 2009) (constructive amendment vs. variance analysis; standard cited)
- Wettstain v. United States, 618 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion review for Rule 33 motions; de novo for constructive amendment questions when preserved)
- Warshak v. United States, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (variance vs. amendment; evaluating evidence and jury instructions under the standard)
- Robison v. United States, 904 F.2d 365 (6th Cir. 1990) (guidance on how variance may affect the offense charged)
- Garcia-Paz v. United States, 282 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (explanation of when difference between indictment and proof constitutes constructive amendment)