U.S. v. Proffit, 94-3392
| Decision Date | 28 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3392,94-3392 |
| Citation | 49 F.3d 404 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stephen R. PROFFIT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Raymond Conrad, Federal Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, argued for appellant.
John Daniel Stewart, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, argued for appellee.
Before HANSEN, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and WILL, * Senior District Judge.
Stephen R. Proffit was tried before a jury and convicted of thirteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. All of the charges alleged in the indictment involved a scheme to defraud in which Proffit misrepresented himself to be a wealthy businessman and convinced various individuals to send him money for ostensibly high return investments in cattle futures. The trial court denied Proffit's motion for a judgment of acquittal and he filed this appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence against him. We find
that the government presented more than sufficient evidence and affirm.
Between November 1989 and July 1991 Proffit solicited a total of approximately $180,000 from thirteen individuals for the purpose of investing in cattle. None of these investors ever received any of their money back, and most, despite their best efforts, never heard from Proffit again. The reason, as charged by federal prosecutors, is that Proffit never invested nor intended to invest any of the funds he received, but rather, was engaged in a sweet-talking scheme to defraud.
As alleged in the indictment, Proffit's basic modus operandi was as follows. He would scan private advertisements of expensive items or services, contact presumably affluent sellers, represent himself to be a wealthy Kansas City businessman involved in the meat packing industry, and feign interest in purchasing the high priced items or services that they had available for sale. Tailoring the details of his story to each target, Proffit would convince these individuals of his supposed sincerity in doing business with them. After gaining their confidence, often over time, but always before consummating any purchase from them, he would mention a great investment opportunity in cattle to which he was privy and willing to share.
Frequently insinuating some insider knowledge, Proffit would guarantee high returns in short order. All that was required was to wire some money, as much as possible, to his account. Actually, Proffit had three accounts, and upon receiving a transfer he would soon make a corresponding withdrawal--to his pocket. Before any questions were asked, and the scheme unravelled, eleven of these thirteen investors had sent him a total of $160,000.
At trial, the thirteen investors, Proffit's former wife, several former bank employees, FBI agents and others, testified as to Proffit's actions. The investors related how Proffit, in some instances calling himself "George Swift," had duped them with his smooth talking references to nonexistent associations, business ventures, partnerships, jet airplanes, and cattle ranches. They told how they had wired thousands of dollars to Proffit for alleged investments only to soon find that his phone number was fake or disconnected and that their money was missing. Former employees of Home Savings, Blue Valley Federal and Merchants bank identified Proffit and testified about his accounts, the wire transfers from investors, and subsequent withdrawals. Corresponding bank records were also produced which documented these transactions.
Proffit's ex-wife explained that when she lived with Proffit between 1989 and 1991 he was not employed anywhere, yet owned a Mercedes and paid for numerous trips to Las Vegas, New Orleans and Florida, as well as dinners, expensive gifts, and even a fur coat for her. She also identified phone bills and signatures on cancelled checks which further connected Proffit to the investors and their lost money. Agents of the FBI confirmed the money transfers to Proffit's accounts and added the details of their investigation, and an auditor of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the agency that regulates investments such as cattle futures, also testified that neither Proffit nor his alleged companies were registered traders.
Proffit called no witnesses and did not testify, but at the close of the government's case moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The District Court denied the motion and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all thirteen counts. On September 23, 1994, Proffit was sentenced to twenty-four months in jail. This appeal, of course, followed.
On appeal,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Garbacz
...conviction only if ... we conclude that no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Proffit , 49 F.3d 404, 406 (8th Cir. 1995). Sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments raised for the first time on appeal, however, are reviewed for plain error. Uni......
-
United States v. Garbacz
...988 F.3d at 1007. Garbacz cannot overcome the "heavy burden" in overturning his conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence. Proffit, 49 F.3d at 406. Garbacz was caught camera stealing from a parish, and he admitted to stealing from multiple parishes. Throughout the years when the r......
-
U.S. v. Slaughter, s. 97-1048
...foreseeable interstate wire communications would be used, and that interstate wire communications were used. United States v. Proffit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir.1995); Atlas Pile Driving Co. v. DiCon Fin. Co., 886 F.2d 986, 991 (8th Here, McDaniels testified that Slaughter told him he ......
-
United States v. Darling, No. 4:01 CR 328 JCH. DDN (E.D. Mo. 2001)
...was used in furtherance of the plan or scheme. United Sates v. Manzer, 69 F.3d 222, 226 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Proffit, 49 F.3d 404, 406 n.1 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Begnaud, 783 F.2d 144, 146-47 (8th Cir. 1986). Therefore, the indictment is legally sufficient on its Bec......
-
Theft offenses
...232, 234 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)); United States v. Frey , 42 F.3d 795, 797 (3d Cir. 1994). According to United States v. Profit , 49 F.3d 404, 406 n. 1 (8th Cir. 1995), there are four elements of a wire fraud case: (1) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised or partic......