U.S. v. Venerable, 86-1580

• Decision Date: 22 December 1986
• Docket Number: No. 86-1580,86-1580
• Citation: 807 F.2d 745
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Curtis W. VENERABLE, Sr., Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 745

807 F.2d 745

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Curtis W. VENERABLE, Sr., Appellant.

No. 86-1580.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 13, 1986.

Decided Dec. 22, 1986.

Gregory M. Dennis, Overland Park, Kan., for appellant.

J. Daniel Stewart, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.

Before John R. GIBSON, FAGG, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Curtis W. Venerable appeals his convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371, and for making a false statement on a wage certification form, id. Sec. 1010, in connection with a HUD-financed construction project in Kansas City, Missouri. We affirm.

The City of Kansas City awarded MBI Corporation (MBI) a contract to redevelop property for a housing project to be known as Citadel Center. The project was partially funded by HUD. MBI submitted requests for HUD construction loan funds based on invoices from Venerable's employer, B & G Enterprises (B & G). To obtain those loan funds, Venerable signed Citadel project documents including billing invoices, "Davis-Bacon" wage certification forms, lien waivers, and a letter to HUD auditors concerning B & G's work on the project. Venerable received project payment checks and deposited them in various B & G-related accounts. When questioned by HUD auditors, no contractor or subcontractor on the Citadel project knew of B & G or of any Citadel work done by B & G. The government's theory at trial was that Venerable had participated in a scheme to obtain HUD payments for work not performed by B & G. As a part of that scheme, the government charged, Venerable falsely represented that he was B & G's owner and that B & G had complied with federal wage requirements entitling it to receive HUD funds.

Venerable raises three issues on appeal. He argues the district court committed error first, in denying his motions for acquittal and for a new trial when the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on either count; second, in denying his motions for a new trial and to suppress statements Venerable made to the FBI when they were given without Miranda warnings; and third, in handling certain exhibits at trial.

Venerable claims the government did not prove either the existence of a conspiracy with which Venerable was associated, or that Venerable had the specific intent to influence HUD when he signed forms as president of a subcontractor verifying certain HUD requirements had been met. We do not agree. When a challenge is made to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and sustain the jury's verdict if it is supported by substantial record evidence. United States v. Andrade, 788 F.2d 521, 525 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 462, 93 L.Ed.2d 408 (1986). Our review of the record shows ample evidence from which the jury could find the existence of a conspiracy, Venerable's involvement with it, and Venerable's intent to influence HUD's action on the project funds.

As to the second issue, Venerable claims the statements he made to FBI agents should have been suppressed because he did not first receive Miranda warnings even...