United States v. Giovanella
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
December 13, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 93-1751
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
ALBERT L. GIOVANELLA, III,
Defendant, Appellant.
_________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U. S. District Judge]
____________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________
_________________________
Gerard J. Boyle and Boyle Law Office, P.C. on brief for
________________ ________________________
appellant.
Peter E. Papps, United States Attorney, Arnold H. Huftalen,
_______________ __________________
Assistant United States Attorney and Terry L. Ollila, Special
________________
Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for the United States.
__________________________
__________________________
Per Curiam. In this criminal appeal, defendant-
Per Curiam.
___________
appellant Albert L. Giovanella, III, advances three arguments.
We address each of them briefly (albeit not in the order
presented).
I
I
Appellant challenges his conviction on Count X of the
indictment on the ground that the statute of conviction, 18
U.S.C. 1956(a)(1) (1988), applies only to persons who "hid[e]
proceeds of unlawful drug sales." Appellant's Brief at 48. We
disagree. The language of the statute suggests no such
limitation, the legislative history implies none, and no court,
to date, has given credence to this argument. Count X of the
indictment charged appellant, in essence, with conducting
financial transactions involving the proceeds of wire-fraud
activities. By its terms, the statute of conviction reaches
knowing use of "the proceeds of specified unlawful activity." 18
U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(A)(1). At the time of appellant's actions,
wire fraud affecting financial institutions was so specified.
See 18 U.S.C. 1956(c)(7)(1)(D) (1988). The charge contained in
___
Count X was, therefore, properly laid under section
1956(a)(1)(A)(1). See United States v. Alford, 999 F.2d 818,
___ ______________ ______
822-23 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Paramo, 998 F.2d 1212,
_____________ ______
1217-18 (3d Cir. 1993); United States v. Taylor, 984 F.2d 298,
______________ ______
301 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. Montoya, 945 F.2d 1068,
_____________ _______
1076-77 (9th Cir. 1991).
II
II
3
Appellant also challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence with regard to Count X. Following a guilty verdict, a
reviewing court must scrutinize the record, drawing all
reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict, to ascertain if a
rational jury could have found that the government proved each
element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United
___ ______
States v. Echeverri, 982 F.2d 675, 677 (1st Cir. 1993); United
______ _________ ______
States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711 (1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
______ _____ _____ ______
113 S. Ct. 1005 (1993). The government can satisfy its burden of
proof by either direct or circumstantial evidence. See
___
Echeverri, 982 F.2d at 679; United States v. Rivera-Santiago, 872
_________ _____________ _______________
F.2d 1073, 1079 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 910 (1989).
_____ ______
To sustain a conviction, a reviewing court need not conclude that
only a guilty verdict could appropriately be reached; it is
enough that the jury's determination draws its essence from a
plausible reading of the record. See Echeverri, 982 F.2d at 677;
___ _________
Ortiz, 966 F.2d at 711.
_____
Using these guideposts, the quantum of evidence adduced
here is more than adequate. If the jury believed either Dr.
Barbati or Mr. Kittredge and credibility calls are, of course,
within the jury's exclusive province, see United States v. David,
___ _____________ _____
940 F.2d 722, 730 (1st Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 2301,
_____ ______
(1992) either man's testimony was sufficient to show that
appellant committed fraud, and that the fraud came within the
contours of section 1956(a)(1)(A)(1). That the jury was at
liberty to believe both witnesses simply adds frosting to the
4
cake a
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
United States v. Giovanella, (1st Cir. 1993).
United States v. Giovanella (United States v. Giovanella) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Strickland v. Washington
466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Jorge Hernando Hoyos-Medina
878 F.2d 21 (First Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Dale Scott Hunnewell
891 F.2d 955 (First Circuit, 1989)
United States v. Efraim Natanel A/K/A Efriam Natanel
938 F.2d 302 (First Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Joseph B. Montoya
945 F.2d 1068 (Ninth Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Steven McGill
952 F.2d 16 (First Circuit, 1991)
United States v. Ruben Ortiz, A/K/A Ruben Ortiz De Jesus, United States of America v. Felix Nunez, A/K/A Felix Nunez Molina
966 F.2d 707 (First Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Marco A. Echeverri
982 F.2d 675 (First Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Allen Rea Taylor
984 F.2d 298 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Alberto Paramo
998 F.2d 1212 (Third Circuit, 1993)
United States v. Christopher P. Alford
999 F.2d 818 (Fifth Circuit, 1993)
United States v. David
940 F.2d 722 (First Circuit, 1991)