United States v. Marlan L. Copeland
662 F. App'x 750
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Defendants Marlan Copeland and Brannoc Rudd were tried for a scheme involving cashing U.S. Treasury tax-refund checks issued to third parties; Copeland convicted of conspiracy, theft of government property, and aggravated identity theft; Rudd convicted of conspiracy.
- Rudd ran a tax-prep business (Electronic Tax and Insurance Consultants); Tax Express (Copeland’s brother) prepared many returns; a large percentage of returns filed through Tax Express were fraudulent.
- Rudd and Copeland used a Wachovia employee (Wooten) who routinely cashed refund checks for them without the named payees present after being shown IDs; many payees testified they never received or authorized those checks.
- At trial Rudd testified he was unaware the checks were fraudulent and said he was paid modest fees for cashing checks; Copeland argued lack of knowledge that checks were stolen.
- The district court convicted, sentenced (Copeland 72 months; Rudd 60 months), and both appealed challenging sufficiency of evidence, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions (deliberate ignorance), and sentencing (including consideration of acquitted conduct and an obstruction enhancement for Rudd).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence against Copeland (knowledge of stolen checks) | Gov: circumstantial evidence (high fraud rate at Tax Express; Copeland brought checks and IDs to bank) supports knowledge | Copeland: no direct proof he knew checks were stolen | Court: Affirmed — circumstantial evidence permitted inference of knowledge; verdict reasonable. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Rudd’s conspiracy conviction (knowledge and target victim) | Gov: evidence showed Rudd knowingly participated; conspiracy need not target U.S. specifically under §371 | Rudd: he lacked knowledge; alternatively, conspiracy targeted payees not the U.S. | Court: Affirmed — jury could reject Rudd’s testimony; §371 covers conspiracies not specifically targeting the U.S.; no manifest miscarriage of justice. |
| Evidentiary rulings (404(b) prior conviction; exclusion of witnesses/expert) | Gov: prior worthless-check conviction admissible to show intent under Rule 404(b) | Copeland: nolo plea barred use; Rudd: district court wrongly excluded former-client witnesses and expert (habit/evidence) | Court: Affirmed — conviction admissible despite nolo contendere; exclusion of witnesses/expert not plain error (habit not shown, expert cumulative). |
| Jury instruction — deliberate ignorance | Gov: instruction proper when evidence allows intentional avoidance theory | Rudd: no evidence of deliberate ignorance; instruction flawed | Court: Affirmed — instruction accurately stated law; any error harmless because jury could convict on actual knowledge. |
| Sentencing — use of acquitted conduct & obstruction enhancement | Gov: court may consider acquitted conduct at sentencing; Rudd committed perjury supporting enhancement | Defendants: Sixth Amendment violated by considering acquitted conduct; Rudd: insufficient evidence of perjury | Court: Affirmed — Eleventh Circuit permits considering acquitted conduct; district court did not clearly err finding Rudd willfully perjured himself and properly applied enhancement. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. United States, 663 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Sosa v. United States, 777 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.) (circumstantial evidence often required for conspiracies)
- Brown v. United States, 53 F.3d 312 (11th Cir.) (defendant testimony, if disbelieved, may be considered substantive evidence of guilt)
- Esquenazi v. United States, 752 F.3d 912 (11th Cir.) (review standard when appellate sufficiency theory differs from trial)
- Harmas v. United States, 974 F.2d 1262 (11th Cir.) (§371 covers two alternative means: offense against the U.S. or defrauding the government)
- Falcone v. United States, 960 F.2d 988 (11th Cir.) (government need not prove U.S. was intended victim under §371)
- Chavez v. United States, 204 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.) (404(b) requires proof of prior act sufficient for jury determination)
- Wyatt v. United States, 762 F.2d 908 (11th Cir.) (nolo plea does not bar admission of the conviction’s facts under Rule 404(b))
- Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir.) (habit evidence must be numerous/systematic to be admissible under Rule 406)
- Steed v. United States, 548 F.3d 961 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing jury instructions; deliberate ignorance usage)
- Kennard v. United States, 472 F.3d 851 (11th Cir.) (harmlessness when alternative theory of conviction supported)
- Dunnigan v. United States, 507 U.S. 87 (U.S. Supreme Court) (perjury may support §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement)
- Faust v. United States, 456 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir.) (acquitted-conduct consideration at sentencing not a Sixth Amendment violation)
- Bradberry v. United States, 466 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir.) (standard of review for guideline findings)