United States v. Roopnarine
| Decision Date | 01 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 16-15025,16-15025 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAVINDRANAUTH ROOPNARINE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
D.C. Docket No. 2:10-cr-14096-JEM-1
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Before JORDAN and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and DUFFEY,* District Judge.
Ravindranauth Roopnarine ("Appellant") appeals his convictions and sentence after a jury found him guilty of one count of conspiring to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, one count of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Appellant asserts several issues on appeal, which we address in turn. After reviewing the extensive trial record and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm Appellant's conviction and sentence.
In 2006, Appellant developed a scheme to acquire more than 181 residential properties in Florida using "straw buyers" to secure mortgages. The scheme included Appellant directing other scheme participants to incorporate three Florida corporations for use in facilitating purchases of the homes: (1) DKR Florida; (2) Vero Lakes New Home Center; and (3) Century Star Realty Group/Sunrise New Homes.
Appellant's scheme generally involved a "straw buyer" purchasing a home from a homebuilder who agreed with Appellant to sell homes for a price below the home's fair market value. Appellant gave the straw buyer $10,000 to serve as the home purchaser. The straw buyer applied to a mortgage lender for a loan to purchase the home. The straw buyer applied for a loan in the amount of the fairmarket value purchase price of the home, not the discounted price for which the homebuilder agreed with Appellant to sell the home. The straw buyer used his own credit information to secure the loan.
Appellant received that portion of the mortgage loan represented by the difference between the discounted home purchase price and the amount of the loan based on the home's fair market price. Appellant promised the straw buyers that he would make the mortgage loan payments with monies he received in renting the homes. Appellant also told straw buyers that when Appellant sold a home for a price greater than the purchase price mortgage, he would split the excess sale funds with the straw buyer. Mortgage lenders were not told of these financial arrangements to which Appellant and his straw buyers agreed.
Soon after the straw purchases commenced, Appellant had difficulty covering mortgage payments because he could not rent the homes and because he used the loan proceeds for personal expenses. To sustain the mortgages he sometimes used loan proceeds from new loans to make payments on existing mortgages. Of the 181 homes that Appellant convinced straw buyers to purchase, all but seven were foreclosed on by mortgage lenders.
In 2008, Ikramul Azam Hosein, one of Appellant's straw buyers, and his wife, reported Appellant to the FBI after Appellant stopped making mortgage payments on Hosein's home and the bank foreclosed on the property.
On December 9, 2010, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of Florida returned an 11-count indictment against Appellant, which included charges for wire fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, mail fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud, and bank fraud, under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, money laundering, under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a), and conspiracy to commit money laundering, under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). On March 7, 2016, Appellant's jury trial began. Upon the government's motion, the District Court dismissed certain of the counts. The jury ultimately convicted Appellant of mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiring to commit mail fraud and wire fraud. On July 14, 2016, the District Court sentenced Appellant to 262 months imprisonment, and ordered him to pay more than $9 million in restitution.
"We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government." United States v. Dominguez, 661 F.3d 1051, 1061 (11th Cir. 2011); see also United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235, 1244 (11th Cir. 2008). The district court's "evidentiary rulings" are reviewed "for a clear abuse of discretion." United States v. Dodds, 347 F.3d 893, 897 (11th Cir. 2003). Jury instructions challenged in the district court are reviewed "de novo to determine whether the instructions misstated the law or misled the jury to the prejudice of the objecting party."United States v. House, 684 F.3d 1173, 1196 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Felts, 579 F.3d 1341, 1342 (11th Cir. 2009)). We review de novo the interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines, but we review the underlying factual findings for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 1305 (11th Cir. 2013).
Appellant challenges his conviction on the following grounds: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) the district court erred in its evidentiary rulings, including (i) limiting defense counsel's cross-examination of government witness Jose Cadena and (ii) allowing an undercover government agent to testify without disclosing his true name; (3) the district court erred by giving a Pinkerton and deliberate ignorance instruction; and (4) the district court wrongfully calculated the loss amount and gross receipts under the sentencing guidelines.
Appellant challenges whether the evidence was sufficient to support his substantive convictions of mail fraud and wire fraud and his conviction of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud. At issue is whether a reasonable fact-finder could have determined that the evidence proved the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309, 1319 (11thCir. 2011); see also United States v. Smith, 459 F.3d 1276, 1286 (11th Cir. 2006). We will not disturb the verdict unless no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Lee, 603 F.3d 904, 912 (11th Cir. 2010). "[C]ircumstantial evidence may be used to establish an element of a crime, even if the jury could draw more than one reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence, and in judging sufficiency of the evidence, we apply the same standard whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial." Langford, 647 F.3d at 1319.
To establish that Appellant committed wire fraud, the government must prove that he: (1) intentionally participated in a scheme to defraud; and (2) used wire communications to further that scheme. 18 U.S.C. § 1343; see Belt v. United States, 868 F.2d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir. 1989). In order to establish that Appellant committed mail fraud, the government must prove that he: (1) intentionally participated in a scheme to defraud; and (2) used the mails to further that scheme. 18 U.S.C. § 1341; see United States v. Wingate, 997 F.2d 1429, 1432 (11th Cir. 1993). Because the elements of wire fraud are analogous to those of mail fraud, the statutes generally are interpreted similarly. Belt, 868 F.2d at 1211 (); see also Langford, 647 F.3d at 1320.
Appellant's wire fraud conviction involved the transfer of $171,000, on or about October 12, 2007, from Washington Mutual Bank to an escrow account for the purchase of a property at 373 N.E. 26th Place, Unit 102, Homestead, Florida (the "26th Place Property"). The record reveals that Ikramul Azam Hosein ("Hosein"), one of Appellant's straw buyers, testified at trial that he signed a fraudulent mortgage loan application for the property. Hosein admitted that he signed the loan documents for the purchase of the property, that his gross monthly income of $15,000 stated on the documents was false, and that he did not pay the amount stated on the documents for the closing of the property. Hosein also identified documents establishing that the principal amount loaned for the property was $171,000, and that the loan proceeds were wired from Washington Mutual Bank to an escrow agent in Florida.
The record includes testimony from Washington Mutual Bank underwriter Jose Cadena, who testified during trial that he reviewed the loan file for the 26th Place Property, and would have considered "[i]ncome, credit, assets, the collateral, and the down payment" in making the underwriting determination. Tr. Transcript at 108-09 (Doc. 360). The testimony included the following exchange regarding the materiality of who provided the down payment for the property:
Tr. Transcript at 112-13 (Doc. 360). The record shows the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant's wire fraud conviction, and we find that a reasonable fact-finder could have determined that the evidence proved Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appellant's mail fraud conviction, according to the government's indictment, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial