United States v. Smith

• Decision Date: 22 March 2013
• Docket Number: No. 11-60828,11-60828
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.JAMES SMITH, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-60828

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Filed: March 22, 2013

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:10-CR-53-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:^*

James Smith appeals his conviction based on 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which prohibits, among other things, making "any materially false . . . statement or representation" in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the United States government. § 1001(a)(2). Smith contends that his conduct was not punishable under § 1001 because it did not fall within the jurisdiction of the United States government or materially influence an authorized governmental function. We conclude that sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict and, therefore, AFFIRM the district court's judgment.

I.

This case involves Smith's alterations to certain commercial driver's license ("CDL") holders' driving records, which are part of the federally-established Commercial Driver's License Information System ("CDLIS"). See 49 U.S.C. § 31309. Established at Congress's direction, the CDLIS "serve[s] as a clearinghouse and depository of information pertaining to the licensing and identification of operators of commercial motor vehicles and the disqualification of such operators from operating commercial motor vehicles." Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, title XII, § 12007, 100 Stat. 3207-175 (1986) (codified as amended at 49 U.S.C. § 31309(a)). The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ("FMCSA"), a division of the Department of Transportation, is responsible for the development and oversight of the CDLIS. See 49 U.S.C. § 113; 49 C.F.R. § 384.225. Robert Redmond, an FMCSA specialist who testified as an expert at trial, explained that the CDLIS is a national computer-based system in which states input the records of their CDL-licensed drivers. If a state chooses to participate in the CDLIS—as all states and the District of Columbia currently do—it must comply with certain minimum standards or risk losing up to ten percent of its federal highway funding. See 49 U.S.C. §§ 31309, 31311(a), 31314. FMCSA periodically audits states' compliance with the minimum standards. See 49 C.F.R. §§ 384.225, 384.301, 384.307.

FMCSA has an agreement with and provides funds to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators ("AAMVA") to operate the CDLIS network. AAMVA also issues the CDLIS State Procedures Manual (the "Manual"), which the federal regulations incorporate, see 49 C.F.R. § 384.107, and the Code Dictionary ("ACD"), which states use to translate traffic offenseconvictions into a uniform format. Cf. 23 C.F.R. Pt. 1327, App. A (setting out an abridged listing of the AAMVA codes). Together, the Manual and ACD set forth the information that states must enter into the CDLIS, such as a jurisdiction code, offense code, and the date and state in which a CDL-holder was cited for and convicted of a traffic violation. This information helps ensure that the CDLIS accurately reflects the driving records of CDL-holders.

FMCSA uses a points system in the CDLIS with four categories of disqualifying offenses, that is, traffic violations for which a person may have his CDL license suspended or removed. Some offenses result in a loss of points only if the CDL holder was driving a commercial vehicle, while others carry a penalty even if the CDL holder was driving a noncommercial vehicle. Redmond testified that, "[i]n many states, including Mississippi, if the person who has a CDL is driving a noncommercial vehicle and that offense is considered in that state to be a disqualifying offense, it does become a serious traffic violation and count against the CDL record." Redmond further explained that serious traffic violations include driving more than fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit, making erratic lane changes, or driving recklessly. These violations carry a penalty of 60 to 120 days of CDL disqualification.

Mississippi participates in the CDLIS through the Mississippi Department of Public Safety (the "Department"). From 2005 to 2010, Smith served as the Director of Driver Records for the Department. In that role, Smith was responsible for overseeing the records of persons holding CDL licenses and had the ability to access and change driver records. Certain tips led law enforcement to investigate Smith's conduct and a grand jury ultimately charged him with violating 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 1002 by falsifying information in seven CDLholders' driving records. Smith moved to dismiss the indictment "for lack of Federal jurisdiction over the conduct . . . as alleged in the Indictment." The district court denied Smith's motion, concluding that Smith's jurisdictional argument presented "a question of fact."

The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial. The government introduced computer records and testimony to show that Smith altered:

• Robert Rawls's driving record, by changing Rawls's speeding conviction from eighty-two miles per hour to seventy-two miles per hour in a sixty-five mile-per-hour zone;

• Larry Parker's driving record, by not only changing a speeding conviction from eighty-one miles per hour to seventy-one miles per hour in a sixty-five mile-per-hour zone, but also deleting a code intended to denote that Parker was convicted of two serious driving offenses within a three-year period;

• Delman Davis's driving record, by not only changing a speeding conviction from forty miles per hour to thirty-five miles per hour in a twenty-five mile-per-hour zone, but also deleting a code intended to denote that Davis was convicted of three serious driving offenses within a three-year period; and

• Ance Cascio's driving record, by changing guilty dispositions for speeding and running a stop sign to show that Cascio attended defensive driver's school, which had the effect of removing a notation that Cascio's license was suspended.

The jury heard testimony that Cascio was an acquaintance of Smith's, and that the alterations to Rawls and Parker's CDL records occurred shortly after one of their relatives—a former state trooper with whom Smith once worked—contacted Smith about the violations.¹

The government also introduced testimony to show that Smith's actions fell "within the jurisdiction" of the United States government, as required for liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Redmond testified that FMCSA not only audits states' compliance with federal standards, but also provides grant funds to help states develop and improve their driver's license databases. Testimony from the Department's employees was consistent with Redmond's account. For example, the computer programmer in charge of maintaining the Department's driver's license database acknowledged that the database is "federally mandated" and "hooked up to the federal system," observing that one of her responsibilities was to "make sure that our programs are in federal compliance." The programmer also testified that FMCSA audited the Department's database in 2004 and 2007, requiring her to take corrective action on each occasion. Finally, two Department employees, including Smith, testified that in 2008 the Department applied for and received federal funds to deal with a backlog of CDL tickets.

At the close of the government's case-in-chief, Smith moved for acquittal. He asserted that the evidence was insufficient to show that his actions fell "within the jurisdiction" of the United States government or were material. The district court denied the motion and Smith proceeded to present his defense.

Smith acknowledged that he altered the speeding records for Rawls, Parker, and Davis, but testified that he did so only to restore driving privileges that he thought had been wrongfully suspended. According to Smith, tickets involving speeds greater than fifteen miles per hour over the speed limit should not have resulted in CDL disqualification, but such disqualifications were occurring. Smith denied making any changes to Cascio's driving record.

After the close of the evidence, Smith once again moved unsuccessfully for a judgment of acquittal. The jury found Smith guilty on four counts, and the district court sentenced him to three year's probation and ordered him to pay a $400 special assessment. Smith timely appealed.

II.

We review de novo the district court's denial of a properly preserved motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Vasquez, 677 F.3d 685, 692 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing United States v. Campbell, 52 F.3d 521, 522 (5th Cir. 1995)). Our "[r]eview is 'highly deferential to the verdict,' asking 'whether the evidence, when reviewed in the light most favorable to the government with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in support of a conviction, allows a rational fact finder to find every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.'" United States v. Richardson, 676 F.3d 491, 501 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Najera Jimenez, 593 F.3d 391, 397 (5th Cir. 2010)). Therefore, "[a] motion for acquittal should be granted if the government fail[ed] to present evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to have found that each essential element of the offense was established beyond a reasonable doubt." Vasquez, 677 F.3d at 692 (citing United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998)).

III.

Smith contends that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction based on 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). Section 1001(a) imposes criminal liability on "whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation." 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Under this provision, the government must prove five elements to obtain a conviction: "(...