USA v. Howard

Citation619 F.3d 723
Decision Date30 August 2010
Docket NumberNo. 09-3840.,09-3840.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jennifer K. HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)

619 F.3d 723

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jennifer K. HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-3840.

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 22, 2010.
Decided Aug. 30, 2010.


619 F.3d 724

Lovita Morris King, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Fort Wayne, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Thomas N. O'Malley, Attorney, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KANNE, WILLIAMS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge.

Jennifer Howard was convicted of access device fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, and aggravated identify theft. She now appeals her convictions for wire fraud and mail fraud claiming that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that she had the specific intent to defraud two of the victims identified in the superceding indictment. We affirm.

I. Background

Jennifer Howard rented the residence at 205 Scott Street, New Haven, Indiana, from her grandmother, Shirley Myers. In the summer of 2007, Howard applied to the ITT Technical Institute in Fort Wayne, Indiana, for the academic period from September through December 2007. That same summer, Howard submitted an online student loan application request in the amount of $30,000 to First Marblehead Education Resources, located in Boston, Massachusetts.

In the application, Howard identified herself and her grandmother as co-borrowers. Howard provided personal identifying information for Myers, including her date of birth, social security number, phone number, and employment and income information. Howard claimed that both she and Myers had the same residential address, e-mail address, and telephone number. She also provided supporting documents, including three pay stubs for Myers, Myers's driver's license, a letter from ITT Tech regarding Howard's admission, and copies of Howard's social security card, driver's license, and a marriage license application for Howard. Howard requested that the funds be disbursed in a check made payable to her and her grandmother, rather than having the funds made payable to her and the school.

Sarah Kostas, a senior fraud investigator with First Marblehead, testified regarding the on-line loan application process. A majority of First Marblehead loans are submitted on-line. After a prospective borrower submits an application through the bank's website, it is assigned a loan identification number. First Marblehead employees are then able to access and print the application. If the application is approved, the borrower is prompted to download the loan credit agreement package. The package contains details of the terms of the loan and includes the signature pages. Although the on-line application itself does not reference First Marblehead or The Education Resource Institute (“TERI”), the company that underwrites the loans, the credit agreement refers to TERI in two different sections, using identical language:

I acknowledge that the requested loan is subject to the limitations on dischargeability and bankruptcy contained in Section 523 and then A(8) of the United States Bankruptcy Code because either or both of the following apply: (a) this loan is made pursuant to a program funded in whole or part by the Education Resource Institute Inc., (“TERI”), a non-profit institution, or (b)
619 F.3d 725

this is a qualified education loan as defined in the Internal Revenue Code.

After reviewing the package, the borrower is directed to execute the signature pages and fax or mail them back to First Marblehead. In the event the lender deems that supporting documentation is needed to approve the loan, a First Marblehead loan analyst communicates the request to the borrower by telephone. First Marblehead retains copies of all loan documentation.

First Marblehead approved the loan to Howard in late August 2007, based almost entirely on Myers's credit worthiness. First Marblehead then processed the loan for Union Federal, printed the check in the amount of $30,000 made payable to Howard and Myers, and mailed the check to Howard. Although the funds were disbursed from a bank account held by TERI, Astrive appeared as the payor on the check. Neither First Marblehead nor TERI were referred to on the check, but a statement appearing below the endorsement line read as follows: “Borrower(s) signing above agree to repay this education loan as per Borrower's credit agreement.” Kostas said that it was more likely than not that Howard knew, and certainly should have known, that Astrive was a loan program, Union Federal was the lender, First Marblehead processed the loan, and that TERI guaranteed the loan.

In fact, on three separate occasions Howard made changes to the loan that required her to sign and fax documents back to First Marblehead. At the conclusion of each iteration, First Marblehead would generate a new credit agreement and provide it to Howard for her signature. Union Federal Savings Bank, the lender, and Astrive, the undergraduate loan program, were referenced on the loan signature pages. Therefore, Howard should have read of these companies and their roles on at least three separate occasions. In the final documents, each signature page bore Howard's signature and a forged signature of Myers as co-signer.

After the loan was disbursed, Howard deposited the $30,000 into her Wells Fargo checking and savings bank accounts, rather than using it to pay her tuition. A short time thereafter, on November 21, 2007, First Marblehead received a fraud notification alert in connection with Howard's loan from American Education Services (“AES”). AES serviced First Marblehead loans after they were disbursed by handling payments made on the loans and providing collection services when payments were not made. AES is the entity that appears on an individual's credit report for nonpayment of debt. Because of this role, AES realized that Howard's loan application was fraudulent. At the time of the alert, First Marblehead's amount at risk was $33,519, which included the amount of the loan plus interest.

Also in 2007, Howard applied for credit card accounts with Chase Visa and American Express using the 205 Scott Street, New Haven, address and Myers's name and personal information. Myers was at a Chase Bank branch on September 1, 2007, conducting personal business when the bank received a fraud notification alert regarding activity on Myers's account. It was then that Myers first learned of the credit card acquired in her name with the 205 Scott Street billing address.

The following month, a collection agency contacted Myers...

To continue reading

Request your trial
56 cases
  • United States v. Weimert, 15–2453.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 8 Abril 2016
    ...of getting financial gain for one's self or causing financial loss to another." Faruki, 803 F.3d at 853, quoting United States v. Howard, 619 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir.2010).Like its cousin mail fraud, the wire fraud statute has been interpreted to reach a broad range of activity. Courts have ......
  • United States v. Valdés-Ayala, 16-1002
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 15 Agosto 2018
    ...drawn from examining the scheme itself...." United States v. Persfull, 660 F.3d 286, 294 (7th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Howard, 619 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2010) ). We join our sister circuits in their approach finding the crime of bankruptcy fraud pursuant to § 157 has been comm......
  • United States v. Vallone
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 28 Septiembre 2012
    ...alia, of agreement to accomplish illegal objective against United States and intent to defraud United States); United States v. Howard, 619 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir.2010) (mail fraud requires proof, inter alia, of intent to defraud, which entails “a wilful act by the defendant with the specif......
  • United States v. Natale
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 23 Julio 2013
    ...intent to deceive or defraud’ ”); see also United States v. Vallone, 698 F.3d 416, 483 (7th Cir.2012) (citing United States v. Howard, 619 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir.2010)); United States ex rel. Baltazar v. Warden, 635 F.3d 866, 868 (7th Cir.2011) (citing Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 Julio 2021
    ...was silent . . . on intent to cause harm . . . . We decline to read into Neder conclusions it did not reach.”); United States v. Howard, 619 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[F]raud does not include an element requiring a contemplated harm to a specif‌ic, identif‌iable victim.” (quoting Unit......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT