US v. William Bill Adams, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00044-JPJ-PMS-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999729817].. [15-4136, 15-4137]

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 1 of 15

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM BILL F. ADAMS,
William F. Adams,

JR.,

a/k/a

Defendant – Appellant,
and
TOMMY SKEENS; JERRY SKEENS,
Petitioners.

No. 15-4137

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN B. WARD,
Defendant – Appellant,
and
TOMMY SKEENS; JERRY SKEENS,
Petitioners.

Bill

F.

Adams,

a/k/a

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 2 of 15

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00044-JPJ-PMS-1; 1:12-cr-00044-JPJ-PMS-5)

Submitted:

December 22, 2015

Decided:

January 5, 2016

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy J. LaFon, CICCARELLO, DEL GIUDICE & LaFON, Charleston,
West Virginia; Michael A. Bragg, BRAGG LAW, PLC, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Appellants.
Anthony P. Giorno, United States
Attorney,
Jennifer
R.
Bockhorst,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 3 of 15

PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William “Bill” F. Adams and
John B. Ward appeal their convictions for conspiracy to defraud
the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and
structuring

of

currency

transactions

to

evade

reporting

requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324 (a)(3) (2012),
contending

the

convictions.
Government
presented

evidence

was

Additionally,

insufficient

did

not

evidence

prove
of

Adams

a

and

single

multiple

to

Ward

sustain
claim

conspiracy,

that

but

conspiracies.

their
the

actually

Adams

also

challenges the district court’s rulings on evidentiary matters
and

the

Government’s

challenges

his

use

of

conviction

on

leading
the

questions.

basis

that

Ward

the

also

financial

structuring committed by his coconspirators was not reasonably
foreseeable to hold him criminally liable under the Pinkerton *
doctrine.
We affirm.
I.
A jury convicted Adams and Ward of conspiring to defraud
the United States and of multiple counts of structuring currency
transactions

*

to

evade

reporting

requirements.

The

Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946).

3

district

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 4 of 15

court sentenced Adams and Ward to a 36-month prison term for
each offense, running concurrently.
These
involved

crimes
coal

arose

mining

out

of

companies

a

check-cashing

and

mine

scheme

supply

that

businesses

located in Virginia and West Virginia. Under this scheme, mine
suppliers provided false invoices to certain mining companies,
and the companies paid the suppliers with a check.

In return,

the mine suppliers paid ninety percent of the check amount in
cash to the mining company, keeping ten percent as its fee.
This scheme allowed the mining companies and their owners to
avoid payment of income tax on the cash received and benefit
from fictitious business tax deductions.
At the end of the Government’s case in chief and at the end
of the trial, Adams and Ward moved the district court for a
judgment

of

Procedure 29.

acquittal

pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

Criminal

Adams and Ward also moved the district court for

a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33,
arguing

the

evidence

presented

at

trial

supported

multiple

conspiracies (rather than the charged single conspiracy) and was
highly prejudicial, the Government improperly presented its case
with leading questions, the district court erred when it limited
the

testimony

of

Adams’

expert

witness,

and

sufficient evidence to support the verdicts.

4

the

case

lacked

Finding sufficient

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 5 of 15

evidence for the convictions and no error, the court denied the
motions.
II.
A.

Sufficient
evidence
supports
structuring convictions

the

conspiracy

and

We review de novo the denial of Adams’ motion for judgment
of acquittal.
Cir. 2010).
the

United States v. Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

Government,

we

must

determine

whether

the

conviction

is

supported by “substantial evidence,” where “substantial evidence
is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as
adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

United States v. Young, 609

F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2010).
Substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding that Adams
and Ward participated in the conspiracy alleged in Count I of
the superseding indictment.

To establish a conspiracy under §

371, the Government must prove (1) an agreement between two or
more

people

to

commit

a

crime,

furtherance of the conspiracy.
197, 213 (4th Cir. 2013).

and

(2)

an

overt

act

in

United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d
A single conspiracy exists where

there is one overall agreement, or one general business venture.
United States v. Leavis, 853 F.2d 215, 218 (4th Cir. 1988).
government

can

prove

a

single

5

conspiracy

by

direct

The
or

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

circumstantial
object”

by

Filed: 01/05/2016

evidence

that

demonstrating

a

Pg: 6 of 15

a

defendant

“tacit

or

knew
mutual

its

“essential

understanding”

between the defendants and other conspirators, even where the
connection is slight.

United States v. Hackley, 662 F.3d 671,

679 (4th Cir. 2011).
In this case, the evidence supports a single conspiracy —
to defraud the United States – through the agreement made among
Ward, Adams, and others, and their numerous overt acts involving
various cash transactions.
establish

a

single

The Government presented evidence to

conspiracy

among

bookkeepers,

coal

mine

operators, and sellers of cash located on and around the border
of

West

Virginia

and

Virginia.

The

conspirators,

including

Adams and Ward, worked together to ensure that the coal mine
operators maintained a large supply of cash to conduct business
in such a way as to avoid taxes, to create paperwork to hide the
movement of untaxed cash through their businesses, and to make
sure their scheme went undetected.
To prove this conspiracy charge, the Government presented
substantial written evidence in the form of handwritten notes on
timesheets,

the

general

ledgers

of

three

mining

companies

affiliated with Adams and Ward, invoices, and records of the
checks to pay those invoices.

The Government also presented its

case through the testimony of numerous witnesses who spoke about

6

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 7 of 15

Ward’s and Adams’ working relationship, and their connection to
the cash suppliers involved in the conspiracy.
The district court also instructed the jury on a multipleconspiracy
argument

theory

that

of

they

defense

were,

uncharged

conspiracies.

existence

of

multiple,

overarching conspiracy.

to

at
The

support

most,
jury

separate

members

thus

at

trial

of

could

conspiracies

and

Ward’s

separate

have

found

instead

of

and
the
one

Nevertheless, the jury found Adams and

Ward guilty of the conspiracy charge.
presented

Adams’

supports

a

Accordingly, the evidence

single

conspiracy,

and

the

district court did not err in denying the motions for judgment
of acquittal or new trial.
Substantial evidence also supports the jury’s finding that
Adams

and

reporting

Ward

structured

requirements.

currency

Pursuant

to

transactions
31

U.S.C.

§

to

evade

5324(a),

a

person is not permitted to structure currency transactions in
such

a

way

to

avoid

federal

reporting

requirements.

The

government must prove three elements to support a conviction for
this type of structuring: (1) the defendant knowingly engaged in
structuring;

(2)

requirements

under

the

defendant

federal

law;

and

knew

of

(3)

the

transaction was to evade the requirements.

the

reporting

purpose

of

the

United States v.

$79,650.00 Seized from Bank of Am. Account Ending in 8247 at
Bank of Am., 7400 Little River Tpk., Annandale, Va., 650 F.3d
7

Appeal: 15-4136

381,

Doc: 51

384

Filed: 01/05/2016

(4th

instructions

of

Cir.
the

2011)

trial

Pg: 8 of 15

(citing

judge);

without

see

also

criticism

United

States

the
v.

MacPherson, 424 F.3d 183, 189 (2d Cir. 2005).
The aiding and abetting statute, which is also referenced
in

the

structuring

offense

against

counts,

the

provides

United

States

“[w]hoever

or

aids,

commits

abets,

an

counsels,

commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a
principal,” and “[w]hoever willfully causes an act to be done
which

if

offense

directly
against

principal.”
did

not

performed
the

by

United

him

States,

18 U.S.C. § 2 (2012).

make

the

structured

or

another

be

an

punishable

is

would

as

a

Thus, even if Adams and Ward

withdrawals

of

cash

themselves,

getting the cash providers to do so for them makes them equally
as culpable.
The

record

makes

clear

that

the

Government

offered

sufficient evidence at trial from which a reasonable juror could
have found Adams and Ward guilty of structuring.

First, Adams

and Ward routinely obtained cash in an amount of $10,000 or
less.
and

Second, after the bank submitted one CTR each for Adams

Ward,

they

kept

their

transactions

under

$10,000.

Two

cooperating witnesses involved in the scheme testified that they
purchased cash in order to avoid paying taxes and triggering
bank reporting requirements.

From this evidence, the jury could

infer Adams and Ward knew about the reporting requirements and
8

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

sought to avoid them.

Pg: 9 of 15

Moreover, the attempt to hide illegal

activity is itself evidence that they knew their conduct was
illegal.

United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1069 (4th

Cir. 1997).

Finally, the third element—that the purpose of the

transactions
established
element.

was
by

to

the

avoid

same

the

evidence

reporting
that

requirement—is

satisfied

Beidler, 110 F.3d at 1068-69.

the

second

Adams and Ward could

have withdrawn cash in amounts greater than $10,000, but they
instead chose to go through the cash providers.

The record

therefore contains sufficient evidence to uphold the structuring
convictions.
B.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when
ruling on evidentiary matters or leading questions

“This

Court

discretion.”

reviews

evidentiary

rulings

for

abuse

of

United States v. Hill, 322 F.3d 301, 304 (4th Cir.

2003).
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) prohibits using evidence of
a crime, wrong, or other act “to prove a person’s character in
order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in
accordance

with

the

character.”

Fed.

R.

Evid.

404(b)(1).

Adams’ argument concerning alleged Rule 404(b) evidence relates
to

his

argument

that

the

Government

evidence of multiple conspiracies.
that

the

Government’s

Rule

404(b)

9

improperly

presented

Specifically, Adams argues
Notice

“shows

that

the

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 10 of 15

presentation of evidence . . . as to his personally structured
transactions . . . was a separate crime.”
Because Rule 404(b) applies to other crimes, wrongs, or
acts, it does not apply if the proponent offers evidence of the
charged act itself.
(4th

Cir.

United States v. Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 352

2010).

Here,

the

Government

offered

evidence

of

Adams’ structured transactions and cash wages, not evidence of
“other crimes.”

These acts were intrinsic to the conspiracy

charge and the structuring counts.

Indeed, the district court

and counsel briefly discussed this issue when preparing jury
instructions, and no one objected to removing the Rule 404(b)
instruction.

Rule

404(b)

thus

does

not

extend

to

these

intrinsic acts, which are not “other acts” and were not offered
to prove Adams’ propensity to commit the charged offenses.

As a

result, the district court did not abuse its discretion or err
when it admitted this evidence.
Adams
limited

also

contends

testimony

accountant,

because

by

the

Dr.

Federal

district

Robert
Rule

court

Rufus,
of

a

Evidence

erred

when

certified
702

it

public

allows

for

testimony by a person who is an “expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education” as long as “the testimony is
based on sufficient facts or data.”

Adams further contends the

only prohibition on expert testimony in criminal cases is that
“an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the
10

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 11 of 15

defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that
constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.”
Fed. R. Evid. 704(b).

Because Rufus did not plan to testify as

to the mental state or condition of the defendant, Adams argues
his testimony should not have been limited.
that

Rufus’

testimony

would

have

Adams also argues

impeached

Kermit

Wiley,

a

mining company supplier who testified to his provision of false
invoices for companies and other involvement in the conspiracy,
and

the

denial

of

that

testimony

prejudiced

Adams

and

constituted clear error.
A review of the record shows the district court properly
excluded

the

chart

and

potential

accordance with Rule 1006.

corresponding

testimony

in

The Rule states, in relevant part,

“The proponent may use a summary, chart, or calculation to prove
the content of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs
that cannot be conveniently examined in court.”
1006.

Fed. R. Evid.

Thus, Rule 1006 permits the admission of charts into

evidence as a surrogate for underlying voluminous records that
would otherwise be admissible into evidence.

United States v.

Janati, 374 F.3d 263, 272 (4th Cir. 2004).
Here,

the

district

court

summarize voluminous records.

found

that

the

chart

did

not

Additionally, the chart focused

on a Memorandum of Interview documenting certain out-of-court
statements

made

by

Kermit

Wiley.
11

At

no

point

during

his

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 12 of 15

testimony, however, did Wiley discuss the details set forth in
that

Memorandum.

Thus,

the

chart

relied

on

inadmissible

evidence.
The

district

court

also

concluded

that

the

chart

and

proposed testimony did not amount to “expert” opinion evidence.
The

district

court

surmised

that

Rufus

intended

to

recount

inadmissible testimony of another witness for the purpose of
impeaching that witness’ testimony.
opinion

based

on

otherwise

purposes of Rule 703.

This is not an “expert”

inadmissible

facts

or

data

for

See United States v. Johnson, 587 F.3d

625, 635 (4th Cir. 2009) (“It is nonetheless appropriate for
district courts to recognize the risk that a particular expert
might

become

nothing

more

than

a

transmitter

of

testimonial

hearsay and exercise their discretion in a manner to avoid such
abuses.”).

Therefore,

the

district

court

did

not

abuse

its

discretion when it excluded Rufus’ chart summarizing the Kermit
Wiley Transactions.
This court reviews rulings on the use of leading questions
for an abuse of discretion.
590, 592 (4th Cir. 1963).

United States v. Durham, 319 F.2d
“Generally, abuse of discretion is

not found in the absence of prejudice or clear injustice to the
defendant.”

Id.

Adams argues the “large number of leading questions . . .
substantially

affected

[his

rights]
12

and

the

same

constitutes

Appeal: 15-4136

clear

Doc: 51

and

Filed: 01/05/2016

prejudicial

Pg: 13 of 15

error.”

Adams

does

not

identify

individual questions or objections that he disputes.

any

Rather,

his argument seems to be that taken altogether, the Government
presented its case through leading questions “without actually
getting any substantive testimony from the witnesses.”
Nevertheless, a review of the record shows that during the
Government’s
objections

case

to

in

leading

chief,

Adams’

questions,

counsel

some

of

made

which

numerous

the

district

court sustained, and some of which the court overruled.
has

not

occurred

explained,
or

how

nor

the

does

the

district

ruling on these objections.

record

court

show,

abused

how

its

Adams

prejudice

discretion

in

Accordingly, the district court did

not abuse its discretion in ruling on the objections, nor did
its rulings result in prejudice to Adams.
C.

The
coconspirators’
financial
structuring
was
reasonably foreseeable to hold Ward accountable under
the Pinkerton doctrine.

The

Pinkerton

doctrine

imposes

vicarious

liability

on

a

coconspirator for the substantive offenses committed by other
members of the conspiracy when the offenses are during and in
furtherance of the conspiracy.

Pinkerton v. United States, 328

U.S. 640, 646–47 (1946); see also Nye & Nissen v. United States,
336

U.S.

613,

618

(1949)

(stating

Pinkerton

“held

that

a

conspirator could be held guilty of the substantive offense even
though he did no more than join the conspiracy, provided that
13

Appeal: 15-4136

the

Doc: 51

substantive

conspiracy

and

Filed: 01/05/2016

offense
as

a

was

part

Pg: 14 of 15

committed

of

it”);

in

furtherance

accord

United

of

the

States

v.

Chorman, 910 F.2d 102, 110 (4th Cir. 1990).
Ward argues there “is no evidence that Ward himself engaged
in any structured withdrawal transaction,” and “there is not
evidence that Ward was aware that cash withdrawals over $10,000
had to be reported.”
Ward’s

argument

is

without

merit.

In

this

case,

a

significant portion of the conspiracy involved purchasing large
amounts of cash and falsified invoices to hide the movement of
cash.

Therefore, it was reasonably foreseeable that the cash

sellers

would

undertake

methods

to

avoid

detection

when

acquiring the cash.
Furthermore, in accordance with Pinkerton, the jury could
have convicted Ward and Adams based solely on the substantive
structuring offenses committed by their coconspirators in the
course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The district

court properly instructed the jury on this issue.

Cooperating

witnesses who pleaded guilty to participation in the conspiracy
testified

that

they

had

structured

cash

out

of

financial

institutions to avoid reporting requirements, and that they sold
this structured cash to Adams and Ward.

Whether Adams or Ward

personally made the withdrawals is irrelevant.
sufficient

that

Ward

used

the
14

structured

The evidence is

cash

to

further

a

Appeal: 15-4136

Doc: 51

Filed: 01/05/2016

Pg: 15 of 15

conspiracy and defraud the United States, and the possibility
that cash providers might have structured the cash that they
were selling to Ward and Adams was reasonably foreseeable.
III.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, we conclude that a rational jury certainly could
have found substantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to
convict

Adams

and

Ward

of

conspiracy

to

defraud

the

United

States, and for the substantive counts of structuring currency
transactions

to

evade

reporting

requirements.

We

further

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or
violate

Federal

Rule

of

Evidence

404(b)

evidence intrinsic to these crimes.

when

it

admitted

Similarly, the district

court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded a chart and
limited

the

testimony

of

Dr.

Robert

Rufus

regarding

certain

transactions and inadmissible evidence, nor did it abuse its
discretion when it ruled on objections to leading questions.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgments.
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

15