U.S. v. Mitchell, No. 80-9015

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore HILL, VANCE and HATCHETT; VANCE
Citation666 F.2d 1385
Parties33 UCC Rep.Serv. 112, 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1365 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert E. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant. Non-Argument Calendar.
Decision Date04 February 1982
Docket NumberNo. 80-9015

Page 1385

666 F.2d 1385
33 UCC Rep.Serv. 112, 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1365
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Robert E. MITCHELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 80-9015
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Feb. 4, 1982.

Page 1387

Warren Herlong, Mobile, Ala., for defendant-appellant.

William R. Favre, Jr., Ginny S. Granade, Mobile, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Before HILL, VANCE and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.

VANCE, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Robert E. Mitchell was charged in a four-count indictment with violating 18 U.S.C. § 658 1 by intentionally disposing of property mortgaged to the Farmers' Home Administration (FmHA). At the close of the government's case the district court granted Mitchell's motion for judgment of acquittal as to counts three and four. Mitchell was convicted, however, on counts one and two. He was given two concurrent three year sentences, all but six months of which was suspended, and was placed on probation for three years. On appeal, Mitchell asserts that: (1) there was insufficient evidence that the transaction underlying count one was covered by the security agreement or that Mitchell intended to defraud the FmHA; (2) there was insufficient evidence that the soybeans pertinent to count two were subject to the FmHA lien; and (3) the admission into evidence of Ronnie Golden's testimony constituted reversible error. After considering each claim, we affirm the conviction.

In July 1976 Mitchell received FmHA loans. The first loan, in the amount of $212,500, was an emergency loss loan payable in five annual installments. The second loan, in the amount of $83,250, was an operating loan for the production of the current year's crops, and was payable January 1, 1977. Under the terms of these loans, the FmHA retained a lien on all crops or plant products growing or to be grown and all inventory, farm products, and supplies owned or thereafter acquired by Mitchell. Should Mitchell sell any crops or anything else covered by the security agreement, the money received was to be paid to the FmHA to reduce his debt. Mitchell also signed a supplementary agreement indicating that he understood that he would retain only that income from the 1976 crop that was in excess of the amount due that year on the two loans.

Count one involved Mitchell's November 1976 delivery of 3,575.5 bushels of soybeans to the Atmore Truckers Association (Association) in Atmore, Alabama. It was the practice of the Association to make an advance payment when grain was brought in for storage. After selling the grain and deducting the advance, storage charges, and interest, the Association would turn over

Page 1388

the balance of the proceeds. In accordance with this practice, the Association issued a check for $15,000 payable to R. E. Mitchell. A week after this transaction the Association received a letter from Samuel Craig, an FmHA employee, advising it of the FmHA's lien on Mitchell's crops and requesting that all future checks be issued jointly to Mitchell and the FmHA. In June 1977, when Mitchell completed his transaction with the Association, the settlement check was made jointly payable to R. E. Mitchell and the FmHA. Mitchell did not apply to his loans the $15,000 advance that he had previously received, however, but used it instead to pay the 1977 rent for his farm land.

Count two involved a July 1977 purchase by Farmers Mutual Exchange (Farmers Mutual) in Summerdale, Alabama of 819.46 bushels of soybeans from Mitchell and its issuance to him of two checks totaling $4,761.07. On the back of each check was a statement that the person to whom the check was made payable certified that the grain described was free and clear of any liens or encumbrances, other than those listed. Mitchell listed no encumbrances or liens on either check.

In September 1976 Ronnie Golden, an employee of United Grain Company (United Grain) in Jay, Florida, stored corn for Mitchell and issued to him two partial advance checks totaling $8,000. In October 1976 Craig notified United Grain that any further payments made to Mitchell should be issued jointly with the FmHA because the FmHA held a lien on Mitchell's crop. Mitchell subsequently made a second delivery of corn to United Grain, but after being informed that payment would have to be made jointly, he said that he would take his corn elsewhere.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Mitchell asserts that there is insufficient evidence to uphold his conviction under either remaining count of the indictment. The standard of review as to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether a reasonably minded jury would necessarily have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt. E.g., United States v. Cardona, 650 F.2d 54, 57 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Gonzalez, 617 F.2d 104, 106 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 868, 101 S.Ct. 202, 66 L.Ed.2d 86...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • United States v. Blackston, Crim. No. CR 482-13.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Georgia)
    • September 13, 1982
    ...statements or the extrinsic offense of a nature so heinous as likely to incite a jury to an irrational decision. U. S. v. Mitchell, 666 F.2d 1385, 1390 (11th Cir. 1982). Most importantly, the Court gave a detailed limiting instruction to the jury following the admission of such evidence, an......
  • U.S. v. Parr, No. 82-5336
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 19, 1983
    ...character and (2) the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. Id. at 911. See also United States v. Mitchell, 666 F.2d 1385, 1389 (11th Cir.1982). In addressing the relevancy prong of the test, the court in Beechum stated: Where the evidence sought to be introduced......
  • U.S. v. Norton, Nos. 87-5425
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 16, 1989
    ...will not form a basis for reversible error "unless the defendant can demonstrate abuse of that discretion." United States v. Mitchell, 666 F.2d 1385, 1390 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124, 102 S.Ct. 2943, 73 L.Ed.2d 1340 Page 1362 Admission of the disputed checks was relevant to est......
  • US v. Moody, Crim. A. No. 90-41-MAC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
    • April 24, 1991
    ...akin to the type of extrinsic fraud which courts have routinely admitted on the issue of intent. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 666 F.2d 1385, 1390 (11th Cir.1982) (similarity of charged and extrinsic transactions, both evincing intent to defraud the Government, admissible where extr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • United States v. Blackston, Crim. No. CR 482-13.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Georgia)
    • September 13, 1982
    ...statements or the extrinsic offense of a nature so heinous as likely to incite a jury to an irrational decision. U. S. v. Mitchell, 666 F.2d 1385, 1390 (11th Cir. 1982). Most importantly, the Court gave a detailed limiting instruction to the jury following the admission of such evidence, an......
  • U.S. v. Parr, No. 82-5336
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • September 19, 1983
    ...character and (2) the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. Id. at 911. See also United States v. Mitchell, 666 F.2d 1385, 1389 (11th Cir.1982). In addressing the relevancy prong of the test, the court in Beechum stated: Where the evidence sought to be introduced......
  • U.S. v. Norton, Nos. 87-5425
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • March 16, 1989
    ...will not form a basis for reversible error "unless the defendant can demonstrate abuse of that discretion." United States v. Mitchell, 666 F.2d 1385, 1390 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1124, 102 S.Ct. 2943, 73 L.Ed.2d 1340 Page 1362 Admission of the disputed checks was relevant to est......
  • US v. Moody, Crim. A. No. 90-41-MAC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Middle District of Georgia
    • April 24, 1991
    ...akin to the type of extrinsic fraud which courts have routinely admitted on the issue of intent. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 666 F.2d 1385, 1390 (11th Cir.1982) (similarity of charged and extrinsic transactions, both evincing intent to defraud the Government, admissible where extr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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