UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAVIER ESTEPA, DIEGO ALEJANDRO ESTEPA VASQUEZ
No. 19-12272
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
May 25, 2021
D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cr-20530-UU-1
Before LAGOA, ANDERSON, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.
[PUBLISH]
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Javier Estepa and his brother, Diego Estepa-Vasquez, appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Javier1 owns Aaron Construction Group, Inc. (“Aaron Construction“), which he operates with Diego. Aaron Construction‘s business included contracting with Miami-Dade County (the “County“) to perform repair work in public housing units that were partially funded by the federal government.
The essential facts, viewed in light most favorable to the government, are as follows. Aaron Constructiоn successfully won its bids on the three Requests for Price Quotes (“RPQ“) specified in the second superseding indictment. In 2014, Aaron Construction won its bid on RPQ #152574. In 2015, Aaron Construction won its bid on RPQ #158639. And, in 2016, it won its bid on RPQ #171090. The County paid Aaron Construction a total of $3,977,438.47 from January 2014 through September 2016 for these bids.
To obtain a contract for a project that involves more than $2,000 in federal funds, the contractor must agree to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act (the “Act” or “Davis-Bacon“), which requires contractors and subcontractors to pay mechanics and laborers the prevailing local wage for their work, as determined by the United States Secretary of Labor.2
Act. See id.
Aaron Construction regularly bid for, and sometimes obtained, federally-funded contracts with the County‘s Public Housing and Community Development (“PHCD“)—a public housing agency managing over 9,200 units of public and mixed income housing in family and elderly housing developments—to repair vacant housing units and perform other miscellaneous work. The bids were in response to the County issuing RPQs and invitations for bids seeking bids for new projects for the renovation and repair of public housing units. Each RPQ contains a target price that takes into account the requirement for contractors to pay Davis-Bacon compliant wages. After receiving bids, the County awards the contract to the lowest bidder, provided that the bid conforms to the material terms and conditions of the County‘s invitation to bid associated with the RPQ.
As noted above, Aaron Construction won three RPQs from the County. Aaron Construction‘s bids for all three RPQs acknowledged the Act‘s wage requirements and represented that Aaron Construction did not expect to use subcontractors. Yet when federal agents executed a search warrant on Aaron Construction‘s primary office after opening an investigation into the company, they discovered subcontractor agreements in effect during each RPQ, including more than fifty subcontractor agreements for 2016 alone. These agreements indicated that Aaron Construction would pay the subcontractors a flat rate regardless of hours expended. Indeed, at trial, several subcontractors testified that the Estepas did not ask them about the amount of hours the subcontractors and their workers worked and, instead, they paid them a per-unit flat fee, regardless of whether they worked overtime.
Despite not inquiring into the actual hours the subcontractors worked, the Estepas signed several certified payroll documents as accurately representing which employees were present at job sites and the hours those employees worked. For example, Javier signed certified payroll documents for the pay periods ending September 7 and 14, 2014, that listed Pedro Guzman as working in Miami. However, U.S. Department of Homeland Security records revealed that Guzman was in fact out of the country during those periods. Rather, Rony Sandoval was the person performing the work attributed to Guzman. Sandoval used Guzman‘s name and social security number because Sandoval was not legally authorized to work in the United States, and Aaron Construction would write checks made out to Guzman, who, in turn, would pay Sandoval. In another example, Javier and Diego both certified that Nicolas Segura worked certain hours for the week ending April 12, 2015. Segura, however, testified that he was paid a flat fee, never submitted his hours to Aaron Construction, and was at all times a
Occasionally, a contractor needs to hire a subcontractor after beginning work to address an unanticipated problem even though the contractor‘s bid did not indicate it would utilize subcontractors. Should that occur, the contractor is required to notify the County within ten business days of the subcontractors it plans to use. Additionally, the information about the new subcontractor should be included in the final estimate for payment packet for a project, which contractors must submit to the County before the County issues the payment. Despite Aaron Construction using subcontractors for the three bids, the final estimate for payment packets for those projects indicated that Aaron Construction did not use subcontractors.
On June 21, 2018, a grand jury indicted Javier and Diego in connection with the three public housing repair contracts that Aaron Construction procured following successful bids to the County. The grand jury subsequently returned two superseding indictments. The second superseding indictment alleged that the brothers agreed to, and did in fact, scheme to “unlawfully enrich themselves by securing PHCD bid awards and causing [the County] to make payments on those contracts by making materially false and fraudulent representations,” and by concealing or omitting “material facts concerning, among other things, their utilization of subcontractors, the number of workers employed on the construction projects, and the status of those workers as full-time employees of Aaron Construction.” Count 1 of the second superseding indictment charged the brothers with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of
Following pretrial motions, the case proceeded to jury trial at which Javier and Diego were jointly tried. At trial, the government argued that the testimony and evidence demonstrated that the Estepas engaged in a scheme to underpay workers in violation of the Act and to conceal that underpayment from the County, e.g., by hiring and illegally paying subcontractors at flat pay rates, by not reporting the use of those subcontractors to the County, and by classifying some of those subcontractors as employees of Aaron Construction. And, as a result of this scheme, Aaron Construction was able to artificially lower its costs and submit—and win—bids that competitors who paid the requisite wages may not have been able to afford, and the County paid Aaron Constructiоn nearly $4 million between January 2014 and September 2016 in connection with those bids.3 This testimony and evidence are summarized as follows.
First, Indira Rajkumar-Futch, a procurement manager for the County‘s PHCD who oversees construction contracts at various public housing units located within the County, testified. Rajkumar-Futch testified that she reviewed the specific bids and contracts related to Aaron Construction
The government, through Rajkumar-Futch, introduced into evidence documents related to the 2014, 2015, and 2016 RPQs on which Aaron Construction successfully bid. Rajkumar-Futch testified that Aaron Construction‘s formal bids for those projects indicated that it would not use subcontractors and that it would comply with the Davis-Bacon requirements. She also testified that she met with both Javier and Diego, and neither ever informed her that they planned to use subcontractors as to the three RPQs. And she stated that if she knew a bidder was providing false information on the forms submitted with the bid, she would not accept the bid. On cross-examination, Rajkumar-Futch agreed that Aaron Construction had a good reputаtion with the public housing community and that the County approved of the work that Aaron Construction had done for the three RPQs. However, she noted that good work did not excuse lack of compliance with the Act. She also stated that Aaron Construction had not been fined by the County for Davis-Bacon wage violations.
Agent Matthew Broadhurst, an Assistant Special Agent working in the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Labor, testified for the government. Broadhurst explained that the Department of Labor opened an investigation into Aaron Construction and that he was the evidence custodian for the search warrant executed on the company‘s office. Broadhurst testified that the investigators found subcontractor agreements for 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, as well as waivers and releases of lien, invoices, checks, and payment reports related to subcontractors and the RPQs at issue. Broadhurst also testified that, during the course of the investigation, he saw Guzman was listed as an employee of Aaron Construction and that Guzman was not in the country during most of September 2014 based on travel records. Aaron Construction‘s certified payroll documents, which were signed by either Javier or Diego, and payroll checks, however, showed Guzman working on days when he was not in the United States. As to the certified payroll documents, Broadhurst testified that the forms required the signer to attest to the accuracy of the reported data—employees’ hours and wages—and to confirm compliance with Davis-Bacon determinations, and further provided that the willful falsification of any of the statements contained within the form could subject a contractor or subcontractor to criminal prosecution.
Yanith Barrerа, an owner of a roofing company who did subcontracting work for Aaron Construction, also testified. Barrera stated that his first subcontractor agreement with Aaron Construction was in early 2017 on the 2016 RPQ that Aaron Construction was awarded. Barrera stated that he was paid for this project via payroll checks and checks to his company, but that Javier never told him he was an employee of Aaron Construction. Barrera stated that
Next, Mauricio Jimenez testified, explaining that he owned a construction company and entered into a subcontractor agreement with Aaron Construction for public housing work. Jimenez testified that he was paid a fixed price for each unit he worked on as a subcontractor, that no one at Aaron Construction ever asked him the amount of hours he or his workers worked, and that, in his invoices to Aaron Construction, he never listed the amount of hours his workers worked. He stated that he and his workers worked at least sixty hours per week and were never paid overtime. He also testified that neither he nor his workers were ever employees of Aaron Construction and that Javier and Diego told him that they needed the names and social security numbers of three of his employees for payroll, even though Jimenez was employing seven workers at the time. Jimenez was paid with a payroll check and another check for his company, which he would use to pay his other workers. Jimenez also testified that Diego and Javier never told him not to bring undocumented workers to complete the work. Jimenez stated that he was interviewed by someone from the County while at the construction site. Jimenez also testified he nevеr saw or filled out Aaron Construction‘s certified payroll document that stated he was an employee of Aaron Construction and listed the alleged amount of hours he worked during the week. On cross-examination, Jimenez stated he never filed a complaint about not being paid a proper wage and that Aaron Construction paid him the full amount of money pursuant to the subcontractor agreement.
Francisco Trujillo, a construction manager with the County‘s PHCD, also testified as a government witness. Trujillo provided testimony similar to Rajkumar-Futch‘s testimony on the RPQ and bidding processes, including the fact that successful bidders were required to inform the County about the subcontractors they were using by the end of the project. He also testified that the County relied upon the contractors being truthful when submitting their bids. He agreed that subcontractor employees should not appear on a contractor‘s certified payroll. Trujillo stated that, while Aaron Construction did “good work” and had a “good reputation,” his opinion would have changed if he knew the documents that Aaron Construction had submitted, which were signed by either of the Estepas, were not correct or if the employees were not being paid an hourly wage or overtime. Trujillo also confirmed that contractors such as Aaron Construction were not supposed to have partially filled out HUD interview forms, which are used to determine if Davis-Bacon wage rates are being used by a contractor. On cross-examination, Trujillo agreed that he had conducted five performance evaluations on projects Aaron Construction had worked, grading them to have “superior performance.” He could not recall if he had received any complaints that Aaron Construction failed to pay one of its employees or subcontractors. But, on redirect, he testified that, even if the work is done well, it was not acceptable to the County that Aaron Construction did not comply with the Davis-Bacon requirements.
Anna Holder, the vice president of client services for FrankCrum, a company providing payroll and worker‘s compensation services to Aaron Construction, testified as a government witness. Holder testified that Javier had signed a contract with FrankCrum specifying the services to be provided, which stated that eighty percent of Aaron Construction‘s work was subcontracted and that FrankCrum did not process hours for subcontractor employees.
Rony Sandoval also testified for the government. Sandoval, who does not have legal immigration status, stated that he met with Javier, discussed doing remodeling work with him, and became an “employee” of Aaron Construction. Sandoval stated that the amount he was paid to remodel units was not based on the amount of hours he worked, but instead was a flat rate, and that he was not paid extra if the work took longer than anticipated. He also testified that he used Guzman‘s company and its license in order to do work for Aaron Construction and that both Estepas knew he was doing so and had no problem with the arrangement. Sandoval also used Guzman‘s social security number in order to receive payment. Sandoval was shown Aaron Construction‘s payroll documents that listed Guzman as working hours instead of him, and Sandoval testified that Guzman did not work with him on the projects.
Sandoval also brought other people to aid him in doing the renovation work, and they would work between eight to ten hours a day. Sandoval, however, never reported the hours he or the other workers worked to Javier and only discussed the “percentage of work that was done during the week” with Diego. And the Estepas never asked him to keep track of the hours worked on each project. He testified that, when it was time for payment, he received a separate check made out tо Guzman‘s company from Aaron Construction that he would use to pay the other workers. Sandoval further testified that he had a discussion with the Estepas about “what to say if an inspector showed up” to a project site. Sandoval was told to say that he and his workers worked for Aaron Construction and that they were painters, although the remodeling work done was not limited to painting. On cross-examination, Sandoval stated he was interviewed by federal agents but denied being promised any benefit from his cooperation with the investigation.
Guzman also testified as a government witness. Guzman stated that he allowed Sandoval to use his company so Sandoval could work. He testified that he did not know either of the Estepas and had never worked for them. Guzman knew of the agreement that Sandoval had reached with Aaron Construction but did not work on
Orlando Blanco, the government‘s last witness, testified that his company entered into subcontractor agreements with Aaron Construction for remodeling work. Blanco was paid a fixed amount of money per unit and did nоt get more money if a project took more hours than anticipated. Blanco never reported the hours that he worked to the Estepas. After being shown Aaron Construction‘s certified payroll documents listing Blanco and his cousin as employees of Aaron Construction, Blanco testified that neither of them were Aaron Construction‘s employees and that they had not reported the hours on the payroll documents.
Following the conclusion of the government‘s case, the Estepas sought to present testimony to show that, to the extent that the Estepas had made any misrepresentations, the misrepresentations were immaterial. Additionally, the Estepas focused on presenting testimony demonstrating that the County was satisfied with Aaron Construction‘s work on the RPQs at issue in the case.
Jose Arnaez, a project manager for the County‘s PHCD, testified that he had supervised Aaron Construction‘s work “[o]n and off, for about 11 years,” and that its work was excellent. However, during the government‘s cross-examination, Arnaez stated that, if he knew Aaron Construction was not paying Davis-Bacon wages, was not collecting hours, and not paying overtime, his opinion about the company would change. He also stated that there was no reason why Aaron Construction should have had half-filled-out interview forms in its office. Giselle Castillo, a construction manager for the County‘s PHCD, testified that she “probably” sent Diego a Davis-Bacon wage interview form. She testified that Aaron Construction always completed its jobs for the County “on time and well.” On cross-examination, however, Castillo testified that her opinion on Aaron Construction would be affected if she knew its workers were not being paid Davis-Bacon wages or if the company was not paying thе workers for all the hours they worked. She also stated that Aaron Construction had indicated in its bids that it was not planning to use subcontractors and that, if she knew she had received false documents from Aaron Construction concerning subcontractor payments and supply lists, then she would not have processed the documents. She noted that the documentation associated with RPQs could be complicated. But she testified that she did not remember if the Estepas had ever told her they did not understand the forms or had asked her for copies of the forms in Spanish.
Lisette Martinez, an architect for the County and former chief of facilities for PHCD, also testified. Martinez testified that she had evaluated the quality of Aaron Construction‘s work and generally graded its work as “superior,” “outstanding,” and “exemplary.” Similar to Arnaez and Castillo, Martinez testified on cross-examination that her opinion of Aaron Construction would be affected if she knew
Diego also testified on his own behalf. Diego testified that Aaron Construction had informed the County it planned to use temporary workers for the 2014 RPQ and that he never tried to hide that from the County. He explained that it was more expensive for his company to list workers as temporary employees than subcontractors, as Aaron Construction paid for their worker‘s compensation and taxes and fees on the workers’ paychecks. Diego testified that Aaron Construction paid its subcontractors as temporary employees to ensure the subcontractor‘s workers would receive Davis-Bacon compliant wages and worker‘s compensation, as well as to ensure that all the workers were legally authorized to work in the United States. As to the interview forms, he testified he received them from Castillo via email.
Diego additionally testified that Marian Restrepo Sanchez was the Aaron Construction employee responsible for obtaining the information for the projects and filling out the paperwork, including the hours worked on each project. He stated that he and Javier sometimes personally did labor work on the projects they were awarded by the County. He denied having any knowledge about Sandoval using Guzman‘s personal information. He testified he relied on Restrepo Sanchez‘s and the contractors’ representations when he signed the certified payroll documents and assumed that all the information was correct. He claimed he did not know that any of the information was false and that he did not intend to defraud the government and did not intentionally falsify documents to receive funds from the County. And he contended that the separate check payments to the workers and contractors were so that the temporary workers would get payroll and the subcontracting company would be paid for the use of their crew. On cross-examination, Diego could not recall which projects he or Javier performed labor work on. He admitted he never told any of the County‘s employees that he did not understand the documents Aaron Construction was required to fill out for the RPQs. The government showed Diego documents from bids Aaron Construction made prior to 2014 in which Aaron Construction did not report it was using subcontractors, even though subcontractor agreements were found by the government during its investigation. He also admitted that he never disclosed the subcontractor agreements to the County but stated he “had no need to do it because [he] was paying them the payroll ... [and] the taxes” and “was taking out the deductions, because at the end of the year [he] did a W-2 for them.” He claimed he had discussed Davis-Bacon wages with all the subcontractors, although the agreements did not mention the Act. Diego also claimed that he had time sheets recorded for all the certified payroll documents, although the Estepas had not presented them as evidence.
Upon the conclusion of the trial, the jury acquitted Javier on the witness tampering count but found Javier and Diego guilty on all the remaining counts. The district court sentenced Javier to 51-months’ imprisonment and a three-year term of supervised release, and it sentenced Diego to 41-months’ imprisonment and a three-year
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Sufficiency of the evidence is a legal question that we review de novo. United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1296 (11th Cir. 2013). When addressing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the government‘s case and must “assume that the jury made all credibility choices in support of the verdict.” United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir. 2009). We may not overturn the jury‘s verdict “if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Capers, 708 F.3d at 1297 (quoting United States v. Herrera, 931 F.2d 761, 762 (11th Cir. 1991)); accord Maxwell, 579 F.3d at 1299.
To support a conviction, “[t]he evidence need not be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis except guilt, and the jury is free to choose between or among the reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the evidence presented at trial.” Capers, 708 F.3d at 1297 (quoting United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d 1389, 1391 (11th Cir. 1989)). The government may introduce circumstantial evidence, but “reasonable inferences, not mere speculation, must support the conviction.” Id. (quoting United States v. Mendez, 528 F.3d 811, 814 (11th Cir. 2008)).
III. ANALYSIS
On appeal, the Estepas contend that the government‘s evidence was insufficient to sustain their wire fraud and conspiracy convictions for two reasons.5 First, they assert that there was insufficient evidence of a scheme to defraud because the County did not suffer a financial loss. Second, the Estepas contend that the government presented insufficient evidence of the requisite mens rea for the crimes for which they were convicted.
The Estepas were convicted and sentenced on counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of
As stated above, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. Maxwell, 579 F.3d at 1299. And based on the record evidence, which we have extensively detailed above, we hold a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the Estepas engaged in a scheme to defraud by intentionally making material misrepresentations to the County that it intended to comply with the Davis-Bacon requirements and to not use subcontractors on the RPQs in order to receive federal funds associated with the RPQs from the County; and (2) the Estepas knowingly and voluntarily agreed to commit the scheme to defraud and pursued overt acts in furtherance of that agreement. The Estepas won RPQ bids for Aaron Construction from the County in 2014, 2015, and 2016. When the Estepas bid on those three RPQs, they knowingly and materially misrepresented their intent to pay wages required by the Act, as well as thеir intention to use subcontractors on the paperwork they submitted. Despite the Estepas’ representations that Aaron Construction would not use subcontractors, federal agents found a large number of subcontractor agreements at the Aaron Construction office during their execution of the search warrant. Additionally, after winning the bids from the County and performing work, the Estepas submitted payment packets to the County, in which the Estepas again represented that Aaron Construction was not using subcontractors. The payment packets included false certified payroll documents, which listed employees who either did not work on the specified jobs or were mislabeled as Aaron Construction employees when they were in fact subcontractors. Indeed, Guzman, who was listed on several of Aaron Construction‘s payroll documents, had never worked for Aaron Construction and was in fact out of the country during several of the pay periods at issue. Rather, Sandoval, using Guzman‘s personal information, was performing subcontracting work for Aaron Construction, and Sandoval testified that the Estepas were aware of this arrangement. And several of the individuals who did subcontracting work for Aaron Construction and were listed as “employees“—e.g., Jimenez, Segura, and Blanco— testified at trial that they were not employees of Aaron Construction and had never seen the payroll documents that listed them as such.
Additionally, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, shows that the Estepas signed the certified payroll statements listing the hours of its “temporary employees” despite never asking the “temporary employees” what hours they worked or paying them an hourly wage. The subcontractors consistently testified that they were paid flat rates, as opposed to an hourly wage, by Aaron Construction, that they were not paid overtime wages, that they never reported the amount of hours worked to the Estepas, and that the Estepas never inquired about their hours worked. Moreover, several subcontractors testified that they used other workers for the projects they took on for Aaron Construction; the Estepas, however, would only report some of those workers as employees. For example, Jimenez employed seven workers while doing subcontracting work for Aaron Construction, but the Estepas only asked for the information of three of Jimenez‘s employees.
This argument is without merit, and our precedent in United States v. Maxwell is instructive. In Maxwell, the defendant, a vice president of Fisk Electrical Corporation—a large, Texas-based electrical contracting corporation—obtained contracts from Miami-Dade County for which Fisk was not eligible because the work was meant to be performed by qualifying small, local businesses. 579 F.3d at 1288. The defendant obtained the contracts and funds on behalf of Fisk by misrepresenting that a qualifying business was subcontracted to complete the work and receive the prоgram‘s payments when, in fact, Fisk was doing the work and receiving the payments. See id. at 1289–92. A grand jury indicted the defendant on numerous counts of mail and wire fraud, money laundering, and related conspiracies, and the paneled jury convicted the defendant. See id. at 1287–88.
On appeal, this Court affirmed the defendant‘s conviction and sentence. Id. at 1307. In doing so, this Court explained that the evidence demonstrated that the defendant made numerous misrepresentations to Miami-Dade County and took actions in support of those misrepresentations. See id. at 1290, 1300. This Court found that the misrepresentations were material—even though Fisk had completed the contracts’ work—because without those misrepresentations, Fisk and its subcontractor would not have been awarded the contracts from the County. See id. at 1288–89, 1300. This Court rejected the defendant‘s argument that there was no scheme to defraud because the actions he took “did not deprive the County or the United States of money or property, because, in the end, the County and the United States received the electrical work they sought.” Id. at 1302. This Court explained that “financial loss is not at the core of these mail and wire frauds,” but “[i]nstead, the penal statutes also seek to punish the intent to obtain money or property from a victim by means of fraud and deceit.” Id. Thus, “[r]egardless of the quality or cost of the work completed,” the funds used to pay out the contracts were meant only for qualifying small, local businesses, and Fisk did not qualify as such a business. See id. at 1302–03. And this Court noted that “[t]he County and the United States were free to prescribe the rules of this contracting process, and the defendant was not free to dishonestly circumvent the worthy purpose of the set-aside program.” Id. at 1303.
The Estepas attempt to distinguish Maxwell by claiming that it involved “preferential hiring, in which an actual purpose of the contract and the funding is to provide otherwise disadvantaged people opportunities for hiring to correct prior discrimination,” while asserting that the Davis-Bacon requirements in this case only relate to a “policing objective” of the government, not the actual act of “defrauding the payor as to the identity of the person hired or the quality or extent of the work.” We find this argument wholly without merit. Under federal law, the County could not have lawfully granted Aaron Construction the contracts at issue had the Estepas not certified that they would comply with the Act. See
The Estepas also contend that the government presented insufficient evidence of the requisite mens rea for the crimes on which they were convicted—i.e., that they had fraudulent intent, as required for the substantive wire fraud counts, and that they knоwingly conspired to defraud, as required for the conspiracy count. Specifically, they argue that their misstatements that certain subcontractors were temporary employees arose from a reasonable and good faith interpretation of a complex regulatory regime and cannot form the basis of a criminal conviction. We disagree.
As explained above, to sustain a wire fraud conviction, the government must prove that a defendant intended to defraud, meaning he intended to make a material misrepresentation aimed at obtaining the property of another. Maxwell, 579 F.3d at 1299, 1302. And, for a conspiracy to commit wire fraud conviction, knowing and voluntary participation in an agreement to achieve an unlawful objective is the relevant intent. Broughton, 689 F.3d at 1277.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, see Maxwell, 579 F.3d at 1299, the record evidence demonstrates that the Estepas’ misrepresentations were not isolated mistakes based on their misunderstanding of the paperwork associated with the RPQs. Rather, the Estepas engaged in a pervasive pattern of deceit before, during, and after bidding on the three RPQs enumerated in the indictment. While the Estepas reported to the County that Aaron Construction did not intend to use subcontractors and would comply with the Act and accurately report workers’ wages and hours, the Estepas in fact personally negotiated with various subcontractors to work on the RPQs at issue, asking them for personal information such as driver‘s licenses and social security numbers and agreeing to pay them flat rates for the projects contrary to Davis-Bacon wage requirements. The Estepas’ deceit continued with each falsely certified payroll document and the final payment packets from Aaron Constructiоn that they submitted to the County. Although none of the subcontractors who testified in this case reported their hours to the Estepas for the projects they worked, the Estepas, in Aaron Construction‘s certified payroll documents, represented that the subcontractors were employees of Aaron Construction and falsely recorded their hours worked and hourly wage. And, while the charged conduct in this case began with the 2014 RPQ, the government introduced evidence that the Estepas submitted documents with misrepresentations about subcontractors even prior to 2014.
Diego testified that he lacked knowledge of the inaccuracies in the payroll documents and assumed the information contained in them was correct, but the jury was free to disregard this testimony and
Based on the record evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the Estepas had the requisite intents for their conviсtions. We therefore conclude that the government‘s evidence was sufficient to demonstrate the requisite mens rea elements of the Estepas’ wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud convictions.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the government presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Estepas: (1) intentionally participated in a scheme to defraud to constitute wire fraud and, (2) knowingly and voluntarily engaged in a conspiracy to commit wire fraud. We therefore affirm the Estepas’ convictions and sentences for wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
AFFIRMED.