USA v. Erica Willis

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Erica Willis. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-10387

Date Filed: 02/06/2017

Page: 1 of 6

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10387
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00344-WSD-CMS-8

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ERICA WILLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(February 6, 2017)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-10387

Date Filed: 02/06/2017

Page: 2 of 6

A federal grand jury charged Erica Willis with one count of conspiring to
steal government property, 18 U.S.C. § 371; two counts of theft of government
funds, 18 U.S.C. § 641; and one count of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A(a)(1). Willis pleaded guilty to conspiring to steal government property
and theft of government funds, and she proceeded to trial on the charge of
aggravated identity theft. After the close of the government’s case in chief, Willis
orally moved for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
29. The district court reserved ruling on that motion and, after Willis elected not to
present any evidence in her defense, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The district
court then denied her motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced her to thirtysix months imprisonment. Willis now appeals the district court’s denial of her
motion for judgment of acquittal.
I.
Willis’ convictions arose from her actions taken as part of a multiperson
scheme to cash stolen United States Treasury checks. Willis became involved in
the scheme when she was introduced to Hudhayfah Abdullah. When Abdullah was
interested in purchasing checks, he would call Willis, she would call a man known
as “Dred,” and the three would meet to complete the sale. Wiretapped phone
conversations between Abdullah, Willis, and Dred recorded them negotiating the
number of checks Abdullah wished to purchase and the price he was willing to
2

Case: 16-10387

Date Filed: 02/06/2017

Page: 3 of 6

pay. During those conversations, Willis would sometimes tell Abdullah whether a
check had multiple payees, whether a payee was an individual or an entity, and the
date a check was issued. On those calls, the three referred to the checks as “TRs”
and “statues,” which Abdullah testified were both slang for Treasury-issued
checks. After the negotiations were complete, Abdullah would go to Willis’ home
and Dred would give him the checks. Abdullah testified that Willis was present
when he examined the checks to make sure they were not counterfeit, including
when he held them up to the light to check for an authentic watermark.
Abdullah sometimes asked Willis and Dred to “front” him the checks,
meaning that he would take the checks from them, attempt to cash them and, if
successful, he would return and pay them a percentage of the amount cashed. And
when negotiating the price he was willing to pay, Abdullah would try to get Willis
and Dred to lower the price by telling them that he had other expenses, including
purchasing a “face” and paying a “runner.” Abdullah testified that a “face” meant
a fake identification, and that a “runner” was the person who cashed the check.
Willis never asked what the words “face” or “runner” meant during their
conversations.
II.
We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of
acquittal, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and
3

Case: 16-10387

Date Filed: 02/06/2017

Page: 4 of 6

drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict.” United States v.
Hough, 803 F.3d 1181, 1187 (11th Cir. 2015). And “[w]e will not overturn a
jury’s verdict if there is any reasonable construction of the evidence that would
have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
(quotation marks omitted).
In order to convict a defendant of aggravated identity theft, the government
must prove that she, during and in relation to the crime of theft of public money,
18 U.S.C. § 641, knowingly used, possessed, or transferred “a means of
identification of another person” without the authority to do so. 18 U.S.C.
§ 1028A(a)(1), (c)(2). Among other things, the government must show “that the
defendant knew that the means of identification at issue belonged to another
person.” Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 657, 129 S. Ct. 1886,
1894 (2009).
Willis contends that the evidence did not show that she knew that fake
documents containing real identities would be used to cash the treasury checks she
sold. She argues that the district court erred in denying her motion because the
evidence did not show that (1) she knew that the checks were authentic and, as a
result, issued to real persons and (2) she knew that the checks would be cashed.
She asserts that if she did not know that the checks were authentic, or if she did not
know that they would be cashed, then she could not have known that false
4

Case: 16-10387

Date Filed: 02/06/2017

Page: 5 of 6

identification documents containing the identities of real people would be used to
cash the checks.
Willis points to evidence showing that counterfeit treasury checks exist,
contending that even though the checks she sold looked like treasury checks, the
evidence did not show that she knew they were authentic. A reasonable jury,
however, could have concluded that Willis knew that the checks were real treasury
checks. For example, Abdullah testified that Willis was present when he examined
the checks, including when he held them up to light to ensure they had authentic
watermarks. 1 And the evidence showed that Willis was familiar with some of the
checks because she gave Abdullah specific descriptions of them, including the date
issued and number of payees. Willis also told an investigator that the checks had
come from a post office employee, which the jury reasonably could have
concluded showed that she knew that the checks had not been counterfeited but
instead had been stolen from the mail. Even though she made that statement to the
investigator after she had sold the checks, the jury could have inferred that she
knew of the checks’ origin at the time she sold them. Given that evidence, a
reasonable jury could have found that Willis knew that the checks were authentic
treasury checks issued to real persons.

1

At Willis’ trial, Abdullah testified as a witness for the government.
5

Case: 16-10387

Date Filed: 02/06/2017

Page: 6 of 6

A reasonable jury also could have concluded that Willis knew that the
checks she sold would be cashed. Recorded phone conversations revealed that
Abdullah, Willis, and Dred discussed “fronting” the checks to Abdullah, meaning
that he would pay for the checks only if he could successfully cash them. Willis’
conversations with Abdullah also indicate that she knew that he was having
someone create false identifications to cash the checks. Abdullah testified that he
told Willis that he would have to obtain “faces,” a term for false identifications, for
the checks she was selling. And he testified that Willis never asked him to clarify
what the term “faces” meant. Based on that evidence, a reasonable jury could have
found that Willis knew that the checks would be cashed.
Given the common understanding that some form of identification is
required to cash checks, and given the evidence showing that Willis knew that
(1) the checks were authentic treasury checks issued to real persons and (2) the
checks were being cashed, a reasonable jury could have found that Willis knew
that false documents containing the identity of real people would be used to cash
the checks. As a result, the district court did not err in denying Willis’ motion for
judgment of acquittal.
AFFIRMED.

6