U.S. v. Chaney ( 1992 )


Menu:
  •                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FIFTH CIRCUIT
    ______________________________
    No. 91-8206
    ______________________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    BARBARA CHANEY,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ___________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    ___________________________________________________
    (June 19, 1992)
    Before BROWN, GARWOOD, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
    EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge:
    This case involves "sham loans" allegedly made by Barbara
    Chaney during the years 1983-1985 in her capacity as president
    and chief executive officer of Western Bank in El Paso, Texas.
    Specifically, Chaney allegedly made loans to individuals with
    "related interests" that were actually made for the benefit of
    those individuals' businesses.       Following trial, a jury found
    Chaney guilty of conspiracy to make false entries in Western Bank
    books with the intent to deceive examiners of the Texas
    Department of Banking (TDB) and the Federal Deposit Insurance
    Corporation (FDIC), a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1005 (Count
    One), and making false entries in Western Bank records in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005 (Count Six).       The district court
    sentenced Chaney to concurrent five-year terms of imprisonment
    for each of these counts, suspended execution of the term of
    imprisonment for Count One, and ordered Chaney jointly and
    severally liable for restitution to the FDIC in the amount of
    $1,141,285.00.   Chaney appeals, asserting that: (i) the district
    court erred in refusing her requested good faith instruction,
    (ii) Count One of the indictment is fundamentally defective
    because it fails to allege an object of the conspiracy charged,
    (iii) there is insufficient evidence of a conspiracy to commit an
    offense, and (iv) restitution is improper because the loss
    suffered was not the result of the offenses of conviction.
    Finding no error, we affirm.
    I
    The indictment alleges that Chaney conspired with
    businessmen Richard T. Cassidy, Chris Cummings, Lawrence Bower,
    and George Wallace to disguise both the purpose and relatedness
    of loans she made to these individuals--loans that violated both
    the legal lending limit established by the TDB and the policy
    instituted by Western Bank to comply with the TDB's regulations.1
    1
    At the time the alleged conspiracy took place, the TDB
    examined banks jointly with the FDIC and the Federal Reserve Bank
    and, by regulation, imposed a legal lending limit on state-
    chartered banks based upon the banks' capital structure and
    certified capital surplus. See TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. arts. 342-
    114, 342-202, 342-203, 342-204, 342-208 (West Supp. 1992)
    (examination function is currently responsibility of Banking
    Commissioner who appoints bank examiners and assistant bank
    examiners to carry it out). Dennis Lebo, a bank examiner and
    former departmental examiner for the TDB, testified at trial that
    a major part of the examination procedure is to review the banks'
    loan portfolios. See Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 71, United
    States v. Chaney, No. 91-8206 (5th Cir. filed July 31, 1991)
    -2-
    2
    This Western Bank lending policy--a written 26-page lending
    policy that explicitly warned against concentration of credit to
    related interests2--was instituted in 1983 after bank examiners
    ["Record on Appeal"]. According to Lebo, if examiners determine
    that a loan is unsatisfactory (for example, in instances where
    the legal lending limit is exceeded), they assign it an
    unsatisfactory loan classification and include it in their
    examination report. All loans classified unsatisfactory during a
    bank examination are checked again during the next examination.
    
    Id. at 81.
         2
    The policy stated, in part:
    A concentration is defined as any group of related
    credits, either by individual borrower or specific
    industry, that equals or exceeds 25% of the bank's
    gross capital funds. Management is aware of the
    inherent risks involved in lending large sums to a
    group of related borrowers or to a single industry.
    All loan request [sic] should detail related
    credits of individual borrowers. This detail should
    include all direct, indirect and related debt of the
    borrower, all overdrafts, unfunded commitments or lines
    of credit, and letters of credit. Each such
    concentration will be considered individually at the
    time of any new loan request. Generally speaking a
    concentration to any one individual borrower or group
    of borrower [sic] is discouraged, and will require
    prior approval of the president.
    Government Exhibit 79, at Part XIX (entitled "Concentrations of
    Credit"), in Record on Appeal. The policy also:
    (1) established lending limits and a method for making
    relevant calculations;
    (2) stated that loan officers were responsible for
    protecting depositors' funds and stockholders' equity;
    (3) required written loan authorization by officers for
    all loans;
    (4) required on-site inspections for all commercial
    business loans of $50,000 or more and recommended such
    inspections for all commercial business loans;
    (5) required loan officers to "determine that the
    borrower is basically honest and is a credit-worthy
    individual"; and
    (6) required loan officers to:
    (i) understand the specific purpose of the
    loan;
    (ii) understand the source and plan of
    repayment with emphasis on the cash flow of
    the company and its ability to repay;
    -3-
    3
    from the TDB adversely classified $847,000 of Western Bank's
    assets and urged the bank's management to "expedite its
    formulation and implementation of written loan policy guidelines
    as the substantial increase in severity of loan classification
    presents cause for concern."3
    A
    During 1983-1985, Chaney authorized numerous loans in the
    names of Bower, Cassidy, Cummings, Wallace, CCG Investment
    ("CCG"), C.O.R., Incorporated ("COR"), and ResortAmerica
    Corporation ("RAC").   The record establishes that the interests
    of these individuals and entities clearly overlapped:   (i)
    Cummings and Wallace were in business together in CCG, RAC, COR,
    and other entities;4 (ii) Bower was associated with Cummings and
    (iii) evaluate back-up sources of repayment;
    and
    (iv) find that the purpose, plan of
    repayment, and collateral were acceptable,
    reasonable, practical, and accomplishable
    within the normal framework in which the
    borrower operated, and document any
    undesirable features.
    
    Id. at Parts
    XIV-XV (entitled "Basic Credit Policies" and "Loan
    Review").
    3
    Record on Appeal, vol. 4, at 182-84. These examiners
    also reported that "[c]ontinued close credit supervision is
    warranted to prevent further deterioration in the bank's expanded
    loan portfolio. . . ." 
    Id. The examiners
    concluded that "[t]he
    bank's volatile dependency ratio of 10.23% continues to compare
    unfavorably with peer group norms" and that "[c]urrent
    examination's classifications substantially reduce an already
    marginal reserve account and it is recommended that current
    year's provisions be sufficient to maintain the reserve at or
    near peer group levels. . . ." 
    Id. An auditor
    discovered many of
    these same problems.
    4
    Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 281 (Bower Testimony):
    Q    Who are you in business with?
    -4-
    4
    Wallace from 1983-85 as a real estate broker, and, as of 1985,
    described himself as a "partner" with Cummings and Wallace in
    CCG, RAC, and other entities;5 (iii) Cummings, Wallace, and Bower
    often borrowed money under their own names for the benefit of
    A    My two partners are Chris A. Cummings and
    George B. Wallace.
    Q    How long have you been in business with Chris
    Cummings and George Wallace?
    A    Since 1983 as a broker with them and then I
    became a partner in their entities in January and April
    of 1985.
    Q    What entities are we talking about?
    A    CCG, ResortAmerica and then subsequent to
    that, other entities that were created.
    5
    
    Id. The three
    bought, subdivided, and sold real estate
    together.   
    Id. at 283
    (Bower testimony):
    Q     Now what kinds of things would your
    organization, you, Chris Cummings and George Wallace
    get involved in?
    A     We would look at the programmata of real
    estate activities in this area, Ruidosa, New Mexico,
    and then later, into Houston, Texas. Primarily, we
    were active here. We would look at land deals. We
    would buy land, subdivide it, break it up and sell it
    in small parcels on a note and Deed of Trust. We would
    buy buildings, get the buildings turned around and
    increase occupancy and increase the income of it and
    then sell it.
    -5-
    5
    their businesses, and Chaney was aware that they did so;6 and
    (iv) Cassidy was a shareholder in RAC until 1982.7
    In October 1983, Chaney and Bower negotiated the first of
    these loans--a $125,000 loan to CCG.   Chaney knew that CCG was a
    partnership owned by Wallace and Cummings.8   In June 1984, Chaney
    and Bower negotiated another loan for CCG in the amount of
    $50,000.   The following month, Bower negotiated a third loan,
    this one for $200,000, which paid off the existing $125,000 and
    6
    Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 307-08 (Bower testimony):
    A    When we discussed the restructuring, [Chaney]
    said [she'd] like to put all of these notes into
    individual names.
    * * *
    A    We often borrowed money in our own name for
    the benefit of the corporations. That was not unusual.
    Q    And Barbara Chaney knew that?
    * * *
    A    Yes.
    
    Id. at 296
    (Bower testimony):
    Q    And did you have discussions to that effect
    with Barbara Chaney, did she know that you and Chris
    Cummings and George Wallace were related borrowing
    entities?
    A    I believe she did.
    7
    Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 282 (Bower testimony):
    Q.   Okay. What about Richard Cassidy?
    A.   Mr. Cassidy was a shareholder and owner
    partner in ResortAmerica before I came on and I believe
    in 1982[.] [A]fter the hotel El Paso Del Norte was
    sold, he wanted to become less active and he sold his
    stock back to ResortAmerica.
    8
    This fact was mentioned during the loan negotiations.
    See Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 286 (Bower Testimony):
    Q    And in the course of your conversations
    with Barbara Chaney, did it come up that CCG
    Investment was an organization, a partnership
    that was owned by George Wallace and Chris
    Cummings?
    A    I'm sure it did.
    -6-
    6
    $50,000 notes and enhanced CCG's debt by $25,000.     Although this
    $200,000 loan was made in CCG's name, according to Bower, the
    funds from the loan went to RAC and CCG "because the assets that
    the two entities owned were intermingled."9
    The upgrade of loans continued, and the overall amount of
    liability grew.   Western Bank made three loans to the related
    borrowing entities on December 28, 1984:     (i) a $550,000 loan was
    made to RAC; (ii) COR received a $600,000 loan, authorized by
    Chaney, which was used to pay off a $600,000 loan in CCG's name;
    and (iii) Wallace negotiated a $600,000 loan for working capital
    for a condominium project in Ruidoso, Mexico (the Tierra
    Condominium) involving Cummings, Wallace, and Bower.     All three
    notes were due on March 29, 1985.     On that day, Bower made it
    clear that the borrowers were not ready to pay the outstanding
    principal, and the three loans were renewed until June 27, 1985.
    B
    During the spring of 1985, a bank examination appeared
    imminent.   Although the legal lending limit for related borrowers
    at Western Bank was $665,000,10 the three related loans and
    interest owed to Western Bank by Cummings, Wallace, and Bower--
    all of which were due to expire on June 27, 1985--totalled
    $1,750,000-2,000,000.   When Bower approached Chaney about
    9
    Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 294.     For example, CCG and
    RAC used the same land as collateral.
    10
    Western Bank's legal lending limit was $646,500-
    $665,000 through 1985. Chaney's lending limit under the bank's
    policy was $600,000 from August 31, 1984 until December 17, 1985,
    and then became the legal lending limit of the bank.
    -7-
    7
    renewing the loans at their expiration in June 1985, Chaney
    agreed but decided that the loans had to be "restructured"--that
    is, Chaney wanted the loans to be under the names of individuals.
    Bower agreed to restructure and assumed one of the loans;
    Cummings took another, and Wallace was already on the third.
    According to Bower's testimony, Chaney said Cummings would not be
    acceptable and suggested that Cassidy's name be used on the
    renewal of the $550,000 RAC note.     When Bower approached Cassidy,
    he agreed to allow his name to be used and did not ask for any of
    the loan proceeds.11   This loan was renewed, RAC's name was
    replaced with Cassidy's, and the loan amount was increased from
    $550,000 to $645,000.12   Chaney also renewed the $600,000 COR
    11
    Bower also testified that he, not Cassidy, handled all
    of these loan negotiations and that, from their conversation
    about restructuring the loan, Chaney would have known that the
    $645,000 in loan proceeds would be used for the benefit of RAC.
    Record on Appeal, vol. 3, at 312:
    Q    Did, was it very very clear that the money
    that was funding that six hundred and forty-five
    thousand dollar loan was for the benefit of
    ResortAmerica?
    A    In my view it was, yes.
    Q    Did you discuss the purpose of that loan with
    Barbara Chaney?
    A    I believe that the conversation was that it
    was, in restructuring at the previous working and
    capital loan, that was the purpose of it.
    The bank's internal loan documents ("spread sheets") were blank
    in the spaces where related Western Bank debt and collateral
    pledged as support for related loans should have been listed, and
    where Cassidy should have indicated that he was borrowing for
    another person or entity.
    12
    When the loan check was issued to Cassidy on July 31,
    1985, "For deposit only, 191-141-9, ResortAmerica Corporation"
    was typed on the back of it. Cassidy endorsed the check and
    deposited it into the Texas Commerce Bank account of RAC;
    $565,453.47 ($550,000 plus interest) of the loan went to pay off
    the $550,000 RAC loan at Western Bank. Bower, not Cassidy, made
    -8-
    8
    loan, changing the borrower to Bower and extending the loan
    amount to $650,000,13 as well as the Wallace loan, which was
    increased from $600,000 to $648,000.14
    In November 1985, Chaney authorized another $440,000 loan to
    Bower.    This loan was made when Bower told Chaney that he had a
    $187,000 loan due at another bank which he was unable to repay.
    Chaney chose to loan Bower $440,000 so that he could use $224,000
    interest payments on this loan--payments that were made from
    RAC's account and, when that account was insufficient, from the
    CCG account.
    13
    Although the $650,000 actually went to RAC, the spread
    sheets for this loan indicated that its purpose was "investment
    in real estate." As on the Cassidy loan, the "related debt"
    section of the spread sheets was left blank.
    14
    Just as the loans shifted hands, so did the underlying
    collateral. As collateral for the $645,000 loan, Cassidy had
    pledged a 640-acre section of land in El Paso referred to as "the
    public school lands" to Western Bank--land transferred to Cassidy
    when he agreed to allow his name to be used for the loan.
    Cassidy then conveyed another section of this "public school"
    land to Bower for $10 by warranty deed, and Bower pledged his
    newly-acquired share of the same land as collateral for the
    $650,000 loan made in his name. Although Chaney was aware that
    Western Bank's lending policy required her to conduct an on-site
    inspection of all collateral securing loans of $50,000 and more,
    Chaney did not conduct such a personal inspection of the
    property; instead, she sent her assistant to fly over the land in
    a helicopter. Although Cassidy's financial statement submitted
    for the $645,000 loan listed this 640 acres as worth $1,279,360
    and Bower submitted an appraisal valuing the land at $1,999 per
    acre, a government appraiser--finding the land to have serious
    water shortage problems and no evidence of residential
    development--valued this land at just $195-$315 per acre.
    Moreover, when Chaney permitted this loan to be increased to
    $645,000 and allowed the borrower's name to be changed to
    Cassidy, she also allowed this land to replace a second mortgage
    in the Tierra Condominium--property valued at $1,200,000-
    $1,600,000--which had secured the loan.
    -9-
    9
    of the loan for a down payment on other real estate.15
    Nevertheless, the loan presentation, initialed by Chaney, states
    that the loan's purpose was to "payoff Montwood National Bank";
    there is no indication in the loan presentation or in the spread
    sheets that the loan would be used for investment in other real
    estate.   When this loan was renewed in 1986, the bank's work
    sheet and Bower's renewal request stated that the original
    purpose of the loan had been investment in real estate, and the
    "related debt" section of the spread sheet was blank.
    C
    Western Bank was examined by the TDB and the FDIC in June
    1986, and the Chaney-Bower negotiated loans caught the examiners'
    attention.16   In September 1990, Chaney, Cummings, Bower, and
    Wallace were indicted for misapplication of Western Bank funds
    and making false entries in the bank's books.17   Cummings, Bower,
    15
    Record on Appeal, vol. 4, at 213 (Chaney testimony):
    Q    Two hundred and twenty-four thousand dollars
    was a figure that you chose?
    A    It was a figure that I chose.
    Q    Why?
    * * *
    A    Because as I understand the transaction, Mr.
    Bower was involved in some real estate transactions
    whereby the money was going to go to a gentlem[a]n
    name[d] Newell Hayes who has been identified.
    16
    Because of a manpower shortage at the Texas Department
    of Banking, there was no on-site examination of western Bank by
    bank examiners from April 1984 until June 1986.
    17
    Specifically, the indictment charged:
    Count One. Conspired to wilfully misapply monies,
    funds, and credits entrusted to the care of Western
    Bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; conspired to make
    false entries in the books of Western Bank with the
    intent to deceive the examiners of the Texas Department
    -10-
    10
    of Banking and the Federal Deposit Insurance
    Corporation ("FDIC"), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1005,
    such conspiracy being a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371;
    Count Two. Aided and abetted by Richard Cassidy (a
    named, unindicted co-conspirator), knowingly made or
    caused to be made a false entry in a book, report or
    statement of Western Bank in connection with a nominee
    loan in the amount of $645,000 made in Cassidy's name,
    in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1005;
    Count Three. Aided and abetted by Cassidy, misapplied
    monies, funds, and credits entrusted to the care of
    Western Bank in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 656 by
    funding a $645,000 nominee loan in Cassidy's name when
    she knew that the true borrower and recipient of
    $565,453.46 of the loan was ResortAmerica Corporation,
    and when she knew that to extend credit to
    ResortAmerica Corporation would exceed and violate
    Western Bank's legal lending limit,;
    Count Four. Aided and abetted by Lawrence Bower (a co-
    defendant who plead guilty), made a false entry in a
    book, report, and statement of Western Bank in
    connection with a nominee loan in the amount of
    $440,000 to Bower, when she made the records of the
    bank reflect that Bower was the borrower, although she
    knew that the true borrower and recipient of the
    proceeds were Chris A. Cummings and ResortAmerican
    Corporation--a violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1005;
    Count Five. Aided and abetted by Bower, misapplied and
    caused to be misapplied monies, funds, and credits
    entrusted to the care of Western Bank, in violation of
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 656, by funding a nominee loan in the
    amount of $440,000 in the name of Bower, when she knew
    that the proceeds of the loan would go to benefit,
    among others, ResortAmerica Corporation, and she knew
    that to extend credit on that date to ResortAmerica
    Corporation would exceed and violate Western Bank's
    legal lending limit; and
    Count Six. Made and caused to be made a false entry in
    a book, report, and statement of Western Bank, with the
    intent to injure and defraud Western Bank and to
    deceive the examiners and agents of the FDIC and the
    Texas Department of Banking; falsely stated in an
    Officer's Questionnaire that since the last bank
    examination she had made no extensions of credit for
    the accommodation of others than those whose name
    appeared on the bank's records or on credit instruments
    in connection with such extensions, when she in fact
    knew that she had extended credit for the accommodation
    of Cummings and ResortAmerica Corporation, and the
    names Cummings and ResortAmerica Corporation did not
    -11-
    11
    and Wallace were also charged with offenses related to the
    submission of false financial statements to Western Bank in
    violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.    Chaney's co-defendants pled
    guilty to submitting false financial statements, and Chaney went
    to trial.
    The district court granted Chaney's pre-verdict motion for
    judgment of acquittal as to the conspiracy to misapply funds
    count (part of Count One) and the substantive misapplication of
    funds counts (Counts Three and Five).    However, the jury found
    Chaney guilty as to the false entry conspiracy charge (a portion
    of Count One) and as to the substantive false entry charge
    concerning a Western Bank Officer's Questionnaire (Count Six),18
    but acquitted her on the remaining counts (Counts Two and
    Four).19    Chaney moved for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding
    the verdict as to Count One, and that motion was denied.    Chaney
    appeals.
    appear on the bank's records or on credit instruments
    in connection with such extensions--all in violation of
    18 U.S.C. § 1005.
    18
    During the 1986 Western Bank examination, Chaney was
    asked to respond to an Officer's Questionnaire, question five of
    which required Chaney to "[l]ist all extensions of credit made
    since the last examination for the accommodation of others than
    those whose names appear on the bank's records or on credit
    instruments in connection with such extensions." Chaney's
    response was "None."
    19
    
    See supra
    note 17 (summarizing the indictment). The
    district court granted Chaney's Rule 29(a) motion for judgment of
    acquittals on the charges of conspiracy to misapply funds (part
    of Count One) and on all substantive misapplication of funds
    counts (Counts Three and Five), but denied this motion as to the
    remaining counts.
    -12-
    12
    II
    Chaney raises the following contentions:
    (a) the district court erred in refusing her requested
    instruction that good faith belief in the truth of her
    statements is a complete defense to the charge of
    making a false entry in Western Bank's books;
    (b) Count One of the indictment is fundamentally
    defective because it fails to allege an object of the
    conspiracy charged;
    (c) the district court erred in refusing to grant
    Chaney's motions for judgment of acquittal as to Count
    One on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence
    of a conspiracy to commit an offense; and
    (d) the district court erred in imposing restitution
    because the loss suffered was not the result of the
    offenses of conviction.
    A
    Chaney contends that her conviction on Count Six--the
    substantive false entry charge concerning her response to a
    question on the Officer's Questionnaire--should be reversed
    because the district court refused to give her proposed good
    faith instruction.20   We disagree.
    20
    Chaney requested the following instruction:
    The good faith of the defendant Barbara Chaney is
    a complete defense to the charges in all counts of the
    indictment because good faith on the part of the
    defendant is simply inconsistent with a finding of
    knowingly and willfully making false statements as
    alleged in the indictment.
    A person who acts on a belief or an opinion
    honestly held is not punishable under this statute
    merely because the belief or opinion turns out to be
    inaccurate, incorrect, or wrong. An honest mistake in
    judgment or an error in management does not rise to the
    level of knowledge and wilfulness required by the
    statute.
    This law is intended to subject to criminal
    punishment only those people who knowingly and
    willfully attempt to deceive. While the term good
    -13-
    13
    We afford the district court substantial latitude in
    formulating its instructions, and we review a district court's
    refusal to include a defendant's proposed jury instruction for
    abuse of discretion.   See United States v. Sellers, 
    926 F.2d 410
    ,
    414 (5th Cir. 1991); United States v. Rochester, 
    898 F.2d 971
    ,
    978 (5th Cir. 1990).   In applying this abuse-of-discretion
    standard, we read the district court's instruction as a whole to
    determine whether that instruction fairly and accurately reflects
    the law and covers the issues presented in the case.   See United
    States v. Daniel, 
    957 F.2d 162
    , 169-70 (5th Cir. 1991) (viewing
    jury instruction as a whole and holding that lack of good faith
    instruction and inclusion of instruction on deliberate ignorance
    does not constitute reversible error); United States v. Hagmann,
    
    950 F.2d 175
    , 180 (5th Cir. 1992) ("When a charge is challenged
    on appeal, we evaluate it in its entirety, looking to see whether
    faith has no precise definition, it means, among other
    things, a belief or opinion honestly held, an absence
    of malice or ill will, and an intention to comply with
    known legal duties.
    In determining whether or not the government has
    proven that the defendant acted in good faith or acted
    knowingly and willfully in making false statements, the
    jury must consider all of the evidence in the case
    bearing on the defendant's state of mind.
    The burden of proving good faith does not rest
    with the defendant because the defendant does not have
    an obligation to prove anything in this case. It is
    the government's burden to prove to you, beyond a
    reasonable doubt, that the defendant Barbara Chaney
    acted knowingly and willfully to make false statements.
    If the evidence in the case leaves the jury with a
    reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant Barbara
    Chaney acted in good faith, the jury must acquit the
    defendant.
    Record on Appeal, vol. 1, at 47-49.
    -14-
    14
    the charge as a whole was correct.").   Specifically, where the
    contention is that the district court has refused to give an
    instruction, we determine whether the requested instruction:    (1)
    is a correct statement of the law; (2) was substantially given in
    the charge as a whole; and (3) concerns an important point in the
    trial, the omission of which seriously impaired the defendant's
    ability to present a given defense effectively.   See United
    States v. Marcello, 
    876 F.2d 1147
    , 1151 (5th Cir. 1989); United
    States v. Rubio, 
    834 F.2d 442
    , 447 (5th Cir. 1987), quoting
    United States v. Grissom, 
    645 F.2d 461
    , 464 (5th Cir. 1981).
    For section 1005 purposes, specific intent is the "intent to
    injure or defraud a bank, . . . or any individual person, or to
    deceive any officer of such bank, or the Comptroller of the
    Currency, or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or any
    agent or examiner appointed to examine the affairs of such bank
    . . . ."   18 U.S.C. § 1005; United States v. McCright, 
    821 F.2d 226
    , 233 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 
    484 U.S. 1005
    , 
    108 S. Ct. 697
    (1988); United States v. Adamson, 
    700 F.2d 953
    , 965 (5th
    Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 
    464 U.S. 833
    (1983).   The district
    court instructed the jury that it was required to find beyond a
    reasonable doubt that Chaney "made such [false] entry wilfully
    with knowledge of its falsity," and that she did so "with the
    intent of defrauding or deceiving the person named in the
    indictment."21   The district court also instructed the jury that:
    21
    Record on Appeal, vol. 5, at 62 (emphasis added).
    -15-
    15
    [a] person acts with intent or intentionally with
    respect to an act or a result of her conduct if it is
    her conscious objective or desire to engage in the act
    or to cause the result.
    * * *
    The word knowingly as that term has been used from time
    to time in these instructions means that the act was
    done voluntarily and intentionally, not because of
    mistake or [accident]. The purpose of adding the word
    knowingly as that term has been used from time to time
    is to [e]nsure that no one will be convicted for an act
    done because of a mistake or accident or other innocent
    reason . . . . Evidence that Barbara Chaney acted or
    failed to act because of being misinformed of or not
    knowing applicable Federal regulations is a factor you
    may consider in determining whether she acted or failed
    to act with a requisite criminal intent required for
    conviction. 22
    Although this instruction is not the one proposed by Chaney,
    it is, in essence, a good faith instruction.   Moreover, Chaney
    had an opportunity to argue good faith to the jury, and she
    substantiated this assertion by testifying that, based on her
    understanding and knowledge of the loans at the bank and the
    applicable regulations, it was her good faith belief that she
    answered the Officer's Questionnaire correctly.23   See Rochester,
    22
    Record on Appeal, vol. 5, at 64, 65-66.
    23
    Chaney's counsel strenuously argued to the jury that
    Chaney acted in good faith:
    We may agree or disagree to the answer that was put
    down on question five about the accommodation of other
    parties, none, when those other parties had no loans at
    the bank . . . . Well, maybe that was the right answer
    and maybe it was the wrong answer, we may agree or
    disagree on that . . . . She may have done it
    differently today than she did then, but agreeing or
    disagreeing, that we would have done things differently
    at different times, is not a crime. Mrs. Chaney didn't
    intend to defraud her bank. She didn't intent to
    deceive anyone. She acted in a way that she thought
    was proper.
    * * *
    If Mrs. Chaney made an entry or answered a question
    -16-
    
    16 898 F.2d at 978
    ("[F]ailure to instruct on good faith is not
    fatal when the jury is given a detailed instruction on specific
    intent and the defendant has the opportunity to argue good faith
    to the jury.").   Accordingly, we find that (1) the instruction
    given by the district court is a correct statement of the law,
    (2) a good faith instruction was substantially given in the
    charge as a whole, and, (3) although the specific intent element
    of section 1005 of Title 18 concerns an important point in
    Chaney's trial, the omission of which would have seriously
    impaired Chaney's ability to present an effective good faith
    defense, we find that this point was dealt with adequately during
    Chaney's trial and in the district court's instructions.     See
    
    Rubio, 834 F.2d at 450
    (holding instruction sufficient where
    defense counsel "had a charge on which to hand his mens rea
    arguments[,]" his "legal theory was covered in the charge, and
    differently than you or I might do today, that doesn't
    mean nor should it that her actions were criminal. She
    made a mistake in judgment so be it, but we don't
    convict people for making mistakes.
    Record on Appeal, vol. 5, at 28-29, 31. This assertion was
    substantiated by Chaney's testimony:
    Q    And if you could read that question to us?
    A    "List all extensions of credit made since the
    last examination for the accommodation of others than
    those whose name[s] appear on the bank's record or on
    credit instruments in connection with such
    extension[s]."
    Q    Okay, and what was your answer to that?
    A    None.
    Q    And why did you answer that?
    A    Because there were none.
    Q    Okay. So you felt that that is a true and
    correct answer?
    A    That's right.
    Record on Appeal, vol. 4, at 164.
    -17-
    17
    his ability to present a defense was not impaired").24
    Therefore, we find that the district court's refusal to give the
    good faith instruction proposed by Chaney does not constitute
    reversible error.25   See 
    Rochester, 898 F.2d at 978
    , citing
    United States v. Hunt, 
    794 F.2d 1095
    (5th Cir. 1986) (holding
    that failure to instruct on good faith is not fatal when jury is
    given detailed instruction on specific intent and defendant has
    opportunity to argue good faith to jury); see also United States
    24
    In Rubio, as in the case before us, defense counsel
    proposed an intent instruction which was the district court
    refused to give, choosing instead to charge the jury with its own
    variation of this instruction. In upholding the district court's
    instruction, this court stated:
    We do not face a situation where no instruction
    was given whatsoever. The judge gave Rubio's requested
    instruction on the definition of the term "knowingly."
    The judge simply refused an instruction which
    reemphasized the government's burden of proving mens
    rea as an element of the offense. Moreover, counsel
    argued this theory extensively to the jury.
    
    Id. at 449-50.
         25
    Chaney also raises a related but subtler contention--
    that the language "a belief or opinion honestly held" and
    "defendant's state of mind" is significant in that it reflects a
    more expansive approach to the good faith defense recently
    recognized by the Supreme Court in Cheek v. United States, __
    U.S. __, 
    111 S. Ct. 604
    (1991) (defendant charged with willful
    failure to file tax return is entitled to instructions that
    inform jury that good faith belief that one need not file tax
    return need not be objectively reasonable to be valid defense).
    We find Cheek inapplicable because its statutory interpretation
    of "willfulness" is "an exception to the traditional rule and is
    a statutory element of special treatment of criminal tax
    offenses." United States v. Arditti, 
    955 F.2d 331
    , 340 (5th Cir.
    1992); see United States v. Dockray, 
    943 F.2d 152
    , 156 (1st Cir.
    1991) (Holding that Cheek is unique to tax evasion cases since
    the willfulness requirement in tax evasion cases "is not
    synonymous with the intent to defraud requirement in the mail and
    wire fraud statutes."); United States v. Dashney, 
    937 F.2d 532
    ,
    539 (10th Cir.) (refusing to extend the Cheek statutory
    interpretation of "wilfulness" to other criminal statutes), cert.
    denied, __ U.S. __, 
    112 S. Ct. 402
    (1991).
    -18-
    18
    v. Chenault, 
    844 F.2d 1124
    , 1130 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that
    omitting good faith instruction is not reversible error where
    jury is not prevented from considering that defense).
    B
    Chaney challenges Count One of her indictment, contending
    that it is fundamentally defective because it fails to allege an
    object of the conspiracy charged.      We disagree.
    Whether an indictment sufficiently alleges the elements of
    an offense is a question of law which we review do novo.       See
    United States v. Shelton, 
    937 F.2d 140
    , 142 (5th Cir. 1991)
    (citation omitted); United States v. Contris, 
    592 F.2d 893
    , 896
    (5th Cir. 1979).    Although an indictment must be a "plain,
    concise and definite written statement of the essential facts
    constituting the offense charged" to satisfy Rule 7(c) of the
    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this court has held that:
    an indictment is sufficient if it [1] contains the
    elements of the offense charged and [2] fairly informs
    a defendant of the charge against him[,] and [3]
    enables him to plead acquittal or conviction in bar of
    future prosecutions for the same offense.
    United States v. Hagmann, 
    950 F.2d 175
    , 183 (5th Cir. 1991),
    quoting United States v. Stanley, 
    765 F.2d 1224
    , 1239 (5th Cir.
    1985).    Practical, not technical, considerations govern the
    validity of an indictment,26 and the test of the validity of an
    indictment is "not whether the indictment could have been framed
    in a more satisfactory manner, but whether it conforms to minimal
    26
    See United States v. Maggitt, 
    784 F.2d 590
    , 598 (5th
    Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).
    -19-
    19
    constitutional standards."   United States v. Webb, 
    747 F.2d 278
    ,
    284 (5th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 
    469 U.S. 1226
    , 
    105 S. Ct. 1222
    (1985); see also United States v. De La
    Rosa, 
    911 F.2d 985
    , 988-89 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S.
    Ct. 2275 (1991); United States v. Wilson, 
    884 F.2d 174
    , 179 (5th
    Cir. 1989).   Because Chaney raises her indictment challenge for
    the first time on appeal, we review Count One with "maximum
    liberality"--that is, we will find Count One sufficient "unless
    it is so defective that it does not, by any reasonable
    construction, charge an offense for which the defendant was
    convicted."   See 
    Shelton, 937 F.2d at 143
    (quotation omitted),
    cert. denied, 
    112 S. Ct. 607
    (1991); United States v. Wilson, 
    884 F.2d 174
    , 179 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v. Rivera, 
    879 F.2d 1247
    , 1251 n.3 (5th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 
    493 U.S. 998
    , 
    110 S. Ct. 554
    (1989).
    Excluding introductory allegations and alleged overt acts,
    Count One of the indictment, which charges that Chaney committed
    a false entry conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, reads
    as follows:
    COUNT ONE
    (18 U.S.C. § 371)
    That beginning on or about December 19, 1983, and
    continuing until on or about March 12, 1987, in the
    Western District of Texas, and elsewhere, the
    Defendants, BARBARA R. CHANEY, CHRIS A. CUMMINGS,
    LAWRENCE M. BOWER, did knowingly and wilfully combine,
    conspire, confederate and agree with each other, with
    Richard T. Cassidy, a principal not indicted herein,
    and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, [to
    violate Title 18, United States Code, Section 656; that
    is to say . . . that Defendants . . . conspired
    with . . . BARBARA R. CHANEY, President of Western
    -20-
    20
    Bank, and with Richard T. Cassidy, a principal not
    indicted herein, to wilfully misapply monies, funds and
    credits which had been entrusted to the care of Western
    Bank,] and further, the said Defendants and unindicted
    co-conspirator caused to be made false entries in the
    books of said bank with the intent to deceive the
    examiners of the Texas Department of Banking and the
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in violation of
    Title 18, United States Code, Section 1005 . . . .27
    Chaney claims that Count One charges her only with participating
    in a conspiracy to misapply bank funds, and that the indictment's
    false entries language does not refer back to the conspiracy--
    that is, Chaney contends that she was not put on notice that the
    conspiracy for which she was charged included a second alleged
    objective of making false entries.
    As recently stated by this court, "[a]n indictment's most
    basic purpose--a fundamental objective that must be realized--is
    `to fairly inform a defendant of the charge against him.'"
    
    Hagmann, 950 F.2d at 182
    (emphasis in original) (citation
    omitted).   Therefore, we look to see whether this basic purpose
    was realized, and we begin with the plain language of the
    indictment:   After alleging that Chaney and others conspired to
    violate section 656, Count One charges that "the said Defendants
    and unindicted co-conspirator caused to be made false entries in
    the books of said bank."   Beyond the literal clarity of its
    language, Count One is written to establish the essential
    elements of a section 371 conspiracy, which are:
    27
    Emphasis added. After the district court granted
    Chaney's motion for judgment of acquittal as to all the 18 U.S.C.
    § 656 misapplication of funds counts and before it submitted the
    indictment to the jury, the court, at Chaney's request, redacted
    the bracketed language.
    -21-
    21
    (1) an agreement by two or more persons to combine
    efforts ("Defendants . . . did knowingly and wilfully
    combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each
    other");
    (2) for an illegal purpose ("to wilfully misapply
    monies, funds and credits" and "ma[ke] false entries in
    the books of said bank with the intent to deceive the
    examiners of the Texas Department of Banking and the
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation"); and
    (3) an overt act by one of the members in furtherance
    of that agreement ("the said Defendants and unindicted
    co-conspirator caused to be made false entries in the
    books of said bank").
    See United States v. Schmick, 
    904 F.2d 936
    , 941 (5th Cir. 1990),
    cert. denied, 
    111 S. Ct. 782
    (1991); United States v. Yamin, 
    868 F.2d 130
    , 133 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    492 U.S. 924
    , 
    109 S. Ct. 3258
    (1989); United States v. Gordon, 
    780 F.2d 1165
    , 1170 (5th
    Cir. 1986).   This interpretation of the meaning of Count One's
    actual language is reinforced by the fact that it is explicitly
    designated a conspiracy count by the citation to 18 U.S.C. § 371
    in its heading.   See United States v. Boyd, 
    885 F.2d 246
    , 249
    (5th Cir. 1989) (statutory citation increases indictment's
    clarity); 
    Wilson, 884 F.2d at 179
    (statutory citation reinforces
    other references within the indictment); United States v. Campos-
    Asencio, 
    822 F.2d 506
    , 508 (5th Cir. 1987).   Accordingly, we find
    that Count One sufficiently informed Chaney that she was charged
    with participating in a section 371 conspiracy with the dual
    objectives of misapplying funds and making false entries.
    C
    Asserting that there is insufficient evidence to support her
    conviction, Chaney also challenges the district court's refusal
    -22-
    22
    to grant her motion for judgment of acquittal for conspiracy to
    violate 18 U.S.C. § 1005 as charged in Count One.28   That Count
    alleges that Chaney, Bower, and Cummings, along with their
    unindicted co-conspirator, Richard Cassidy, conspired to make
    false entries in bank records related to nominee loans with the
    intent to deceive bank examiners.
    It is well-established that juries are "free to choose among
    all reasonable constructions of the evidence"29--that is, we will
    affirm a jury's verdict if any rational trier of fact could have
    found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable
    doubt.    See Jackson v. Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
    , 319 (1979); 
    Logan, 949 F.2d at 1380
    ("The ultimate test for sufficiency of evidence
    challenges is whether a reasonable jury could find that the
    evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."); United
    States v. Nixon, 
    816 F.2d 1022
    , 1029 (5th Cir. 1987), cert.
    denied, 
    484 U.S. 1026
    , 
    108 S. Ct. 749
    (1988).   In other words,
    the "rule of reason" governs what a fact finder is permitted to
    infer from the evidence in a particular case, and fact finders
    may "use their common sense and evaluate the facts in light of
    their knowledge of the natural tendencies and inclinations of
    28
    Chaney does not challenge the sufficiency of the
    evidence supporting her conviction on Count Six of the
    indictment, the substantive section 1005 charge relating to the
    Officer's Questionnaire.
    29
    United States v. Berisha, 
    925 F.2d 791
    , 795 (5th Cir.
    1991); see United States v. Logan, 
    949 F.2d 1370
    , 1380 (5th Cir.
    1991), cert. denied, 
    112 S. Ct. 1597
    (1992); United States v.
    Molinar-Apodaca, 
    889 F.2d 1417
    , 1423 (5th Cir. 1989); United
    States v. Punch, 
    722 F.2d 146
    , 153 (5th Cir. 1983).
    -23-
    23
    human beings."     United States v. Ayala, 
    887 F.2d 62
    , 67 (5th Cir.
    1989) (quotation omitted).    In applying this rule of reason
    standard, "this Court is obliged to view the evidence, whether
    direct or circumstantial, and all inferences reasonably drawn
    from it, in the light most favorable to the verdict."     Molinar-
    
    Apodaca, 889 F.2d at 1423
    ; see also 
    Berisha, 925 F.2d at 795
    ;
    
    Logan, 949 F.2d at 1380
    ; United States v. Bryant, 
    770 F.2d 1283
    ,
    1288 (5th Cir. 1985) (standard of review is same whether evidence
    is direct or circumstantial), cert. denied, 
    475 U.S. 1030
    , 106 S.
    Ct. 1235 (1986).    To sustain a jury verdict, the evidence
    certainly need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of
    innocence nor be inconsistent with every conclusion except that
    of guilt.   See United States v. Bell, 
    678 F.2d 547
    , 549 (5th Cir.
    1982) (en banc), aff'd on other grounds, 
    462 U.S. 356
    , 
    103 S. Ct. 2398
    (1983).
    To establish a substantive violation of section 1005, the
    government must prove that: (1) an entry made in bank records is
    false; (2) the defendant made the entry or caused it to be made;
    (3) the defendant knew the entry was false at the time he or she
    made it; and (4) the defendant intended that the entry injure or
    defraud the bank or public officers.30    See United States v.
    30
    The purpose of section 1005 is to ensure that
    inspection of a bank's books will yield an accurate picture of
    that bank's condition. See United States v. Cordell, 
    912 F.2d 769
    , 773 (5th Cir. 1990); cf. United States v. Darby, 
    289 U.S. 224
    , 226, 
    53 S. Ct. 573
    , 574 (1933). During the time of the acts
    alleged in Count One, section 1005 read, in pertinent part:
    Whoever makes any false entry in any book, report,
    or statement of [any Federal Reserve bank, member
    bank . . . insured bank . . . ] with intent to injure
    -24-
    24
    Kington, 
    875 F.2d 1091
    , 1104 (5th Cir. 1989); United States v.
    Jackson, 
    621 F.2d 216
    , 219 (5th Cir. 1980).   The government need
    not prove intent to cause the bank injury; all that is required
    is that the defendant intended to defraud one or more of the
    bank's officers, auditors, examiners, or agents.    See United
    States v. Tullos, 
    868 F.2d 689
    , 695 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    490 U.S. 1112
    , 
    109 S. Ct. 3171
    (1989), citing United States v.
    Stovall, 
    825 F.2d 817
    (5th Cir. 1987).   To establish a conspiracy
    under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government must prove beyond a
    reasonable doubt that the defendant entered into an agreement
    with at least one other person to commit a crime against the
    United States and that any one of these conspirators committed an
    overt act in furtherance of that agreement.    See United States v.
    Schmick, 
    904 F.2d 936
    , 941 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v.
    Yamin, 
    868 F.2d 130
    , 133 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    492 U.S. 924
    ,
    
    109 S. Ct. 3258
    (1989); see 
    also supra
    Part II.B.    The government
    must also prove that the defendant knew of the conspiracy and
    voluntarily became part of it.    
    Yamin, 868 F.2d at 133
    .   The
    existence of a conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial
    evidence.   
    Id. The agreement
    between or among co-conspirators
    also may be proved by circumstantial evidence.     See United States
    or defraud . . . the Federal Deposit Insurance
    Corporation, or any agent or examiner appointed to
    examine the affairs of such bank . . .
    Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned
    not more than five years, or both.
    18 U.S.C. § 1005 (1988). Congress amended section 1005 in 1989
    to, among other things, increase the possible penalty to
    $1,000,000 and twenty years imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 1005
    (West Supp. 1992).
    -25-
    25
    v. Goff, 
    847 F.2d 149
    , 168 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    488 U.S. 932
    , 
    109 S. Ct. 324
    (1988).
    According to Chaney, because she was acquitted of making
    false statements in the loan files of the bank as was charged in
    Count Six,31 there is no overt act to support the charge that she
    conspired to make a false statement on the Officer's
    Questionnaire or otherwise conspired to falsify bank records.32
    Chaney contends that she is not challenging her conspiracy
    conviction under Count One based upon an inconsistent jury
    verdict;33 rather, she asserts that her conspiracy acquittals on
    31
    
    See supra
    note 17 (summarizing indictment).
    32
    Specifically, Chaney asserts that,
    [e]ven assuming that [she] were guilty on Count Six,
    that she intentionally lied to the bank examiners by
    denying that she had any loans at the bank that were
    made for the accommodation of others than those whose
    names appeared in the records of the bank, there is
    simply no evidence that indicates she conspired with
    anyone to commit this offense.
    * * *
    [She] participated, with her co-defendants, in making
    the loans, which the jury did not find to be illegal.
    She, on her own, later characterized the loans in a way
    that the jury found to be inaccurate, and therefore
    illegal. The government presented no evidence of a
    conspiracy. Accordingly, this conviction must be
    reversed.
    Brief for Appellant at 30, United States v. Chaney, No. 91-8206
    (5th Cir. filed Sept. 11, 1991). Since there is ample evidence
    in the record to support the agreement element of this conviction
    (see infra note 40), our discussion is limited to Chaney's
    contention that the government has failed to establish an overt
    act in furtherance of the conspiracy for which she was convicted.
    33
    It is well-settled that a defendant cannot challenge
    her conviction based upon inconsistent jury verdicts. See, e.g.,
    United States v. Powell, 
    469 U.S. 57
    , 64-67, 
    105 S. Ct. 471
    , 476-
    77 (1984) ("We also reject, as imprudent and unworkable, a rule
    that would allow criminal defendants to challenge inconsistent
    verdicts . . . ."); cf. United States v. Zuniga-Salinas, 952 F.2d
    -26-
    26
    other counts demonstrate that there is a lack of evidence to
    support such a conviction under Count One.    We disagree.
    At trial, Chaney did not dispute that she had approved all
    the loans at issue.   In fact, Chaney admitted knowing that the
    borrowers and their interests were related,34 and that she had
    violated her own lending policy by lending more than $600,000 to
    a related group of borrowers.35    It is clear that the loans made
    to this related group of borrowers grossly exceeding the legal
    lending limit of Western Bank and the lending policy instituted
    in 1983 by Western Bank.36
    Moreover, the record establishes that Chaney acted to
    conceal the relatedness of these borrowers and the true nature of
    876, 878 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) ("An inconsistent verdict
    should no longer be a bar to conviction where all other co-
    conspirators are acquitted.").
    34
    Specifically, Chaney: acknowledged that Cassidy, RAC,
    CCG, "and the other borrowers" were related borrowers; agreed
    that CCG, Bower, Cummings, and Wallace were "all a group of
    related borrowers"; admitted that she was aware that the Cassidy
    and Bower loans were related; that Cassidy "was well known to
    have officed with Mr. Cummings and been associated with [Bower
    and Wallace]"; and that she was aware that Cassidy, Bower,
    Wallace, and Cummings had worked together on various real estate
    projects. Record on Appeal, vol. 4, at 192, 194, 217, 219-21,
    227, 233 (Chaney testimony).
    35
    Chaney testified as follows:
    Q    Well, I think my question was, you violated
    your own lending policy by extending more than six
    hundred thousand dollars to a "related group of
    borrowers", didn't you?
    A    Yes.
    Record on Appeal, vol. 4, at 217.
    36
    
    See supra
    notes 2, 10 and accompanying text.
    -27-
    27
    the loans at issue.37   The transactions underlying Chaney's
    conviction involve a series of loan upgrades in which the
    expanding debt and underlying collateral were shifted among a
    group of individuals with a shared interest in gaining access to
    Western Bank funds.38   Effecting these transactions required the
    preparation of numerous documents--documents that contain both
    false entries and factual omissions which disguised the nature of
    the loans and actual borrowers from Western Bank and the TDB
    37
    
    See supra
    Parts I.A and I.B.
    38
    
    See supra
    Part I.B.
    -28-
    28
    examiners.39   Accordingly, we affirm Chaney's conviction for
    39
    Chaney was charged under Count One with conspiracy to
    falsify Western Bank records. The omission of material
    information, as well as actual misstatements, qualifies as a
    false entry under 18 U.S.C. § 1005 and can serve as the requisite
    overt act for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. See United
    States v. Cordell, 
    912 F.2d 769
    , 773 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding
    that omission of material information qualifies as false entry
    for section 1005 purposes); United States v. Kington, 
    875 F.2d 1091
    , 1105 (5th Cir. 1989) (stating that defendants need only
    have conducted transactions in way that would purposely defeat
    reporting requirements). The record is bursting with evidence
    that Chaney and other actors conspired to make such omissions and
    misstatements: Bower and Chaney made false entries on Western
    Bank loan documents for the $200,000 loan negotiated July 19,
    1984--although they knew that the proceeds would be commingled
    with those of RAC, Chaney and Bower made it appear as though CCG
    was the actual borrower; Chaney directed her assistant to prepare
    a loan presentation for the $265,000 loan and caused the purpose
    section to be left blank; Chaney caused documents for the
    $550,000 loan to reflect that RAC was the borrower when $285,000
    of the proceeds went to CCG and caused spread sheets for that
    loan to fail to reflect any related debt at Western Bank; Chaney
    authorized a $600,000 loan on December 28, 1984, and caused the
    bank records to show that COR was the borrower when the proceeds
    actually paid off a Western Bank loan to CCG; Chaney and Bower
    explicitly agreed that they would use Cassidy's name on loan
    documents for the $645,000 loan when the knew that the real
    borrower was RAC and, to effect this loan, caused the loan
    request documents to falsely list Cassidy as the actual borrower;
    Chaney caused the spread sheets for this loan to fail to (1)
    specify any related debt at Western Bank and (2) list related
    collateral, such as section 1 of block 5, which Bower used as
    collateral for loans in his name, and later caused the loan
    renewal work sheet to falsely indicate that the loan was for an
    individual; Chaney caused her assistant to prepare spread sheets
    for the $650,000 loan in Bower's name when she knew that the loan
    was actually to RAC, and she also failed to indicate that there
    was related debt at Western Bank; Bower submitted misleading
    appraisals of public school lands in support of loans made in the
    names of Bower and Cassidy with the intent to deceive bank
    examiners into believing these loans were adequately
    collateralized; when authorizing the $440,000 loan to Bower in
    November 1985, Chaney falsely indicated that the loan proceeds
    would be used to pay off Bower's indebtedness to Montwood
    National Bank when Chaney and Bower knew that $224,000 of the
    loan was to be used for a down payment on real estate; and, one
    month after renewing this $440,000 loan, Chaney falsely indicated
    on her Officer's Questionnaire that she had made no nominee
    ("sham") loans since the last bank examination. 
    See supra
    Parts
    -29-
    29
    conspiracy to make false entries.
    D
    Finally, Chaney contends that the district court erred in
    imposing joint and several liability among Chaney and her co-
    defendants for restitution in the amount of $1,141,285.40
    According to Chaney, no loss flowed from the offenses of
    conviction--that is, from Chaney's conviction for conspiracy to
    make false entries (Count One), and from her conviction on the
    substantive false entry charge relating to the Officer's
    Questionnaire (Count Six)--and no restitution is appropriate.41
    1
    Restitution under the Victim and Witness Protect Act
    (VWPA)42 is limited to losses caused by the specific conduct that
    is the basis of the offense of conviction, Hughey v. United
    I.A and I.B.
    40
    The district court originally ordered Chaney to pay
    restitution in the amount of $1,926,681. The only explanation in
    the record for this reduction is testimony from Bower's
    sentencing hearing that the $440,000 loan had been paid. The
    government has requested that this court take judicial notice of
    this portion of the Bower record. Brief for the United States of
    America at 63 n.32, United States v. Chaney, No. 91-8206 (5th
    Cir. filed Dec. 20, 1991).
    41
    Specifically, Chaney asserts that "[t]he loss to the
    bank, if it was caused by any of Mrs. Chaney's acts, was caused
    by the making of the loans. Mrs. Chaney was acquitted on the
    counts relating to the making of the loans. Therefore, the
    restitution was improperly imposed." Brief for Appellant at 31,
    United States v. Chaney, No. 91-8206 (5th Cir. filed Sept. 11,
    1991) ["Chaney Brief"].
    42
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3579-3580 (1982 ed.) (renumbered §§ 3663,
    3664 pursuant to Pub.L. 98-473, Title II, c. II, § 235, Oct. 12,
    1984, 98 Stat. 2031) (VWPA).
    -30-
    30
    States, __ U.S. __, __, 
    110 S. Ct. 1979
    , 1984 (1990), but we have
    held that this VWPA restriction is not applicable to cases
    involving restitution ordered pursuant to the Federal Probation
    Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3651 (repealed eff. Nov. 1, 1986) (FPA).     See
    United States v. Hunt, 
    940 F.2d 130
    , 131 (5th Cir. 1991).43
    Chaney's offenses were committed while the Probation Act was in
    effect, and the record is not conclusive as to whether the
    district court ordered restitution under the Probation Act or
    under the VWPA.   As stated in United States v. Cook, 
    952 F.2d 1262
    , 1264 (10th Cir. 1991), "where both statutes authorize
    restitution, district courts should specify whether the FPA or
    VWPA governs."    When district courts fail to do so, "unless a
    clear intention appears to the contrary, we will assume
    restitution orders are made pursuant to the broader provisions of
    the VWPA."   
    Id., citing United
    States v. Padgett, 
    892 F.2d 445
    ,
    448 (6th Cir. 1989); see United States v. Kress, 
    944 F.2d 155
    ,
    158 (3d Cir. 1991) ("Where the district court fails to specify
    43
    See also United States v. Haile, 
    795 F.2d 489
    , 491 (5th
    Cir. 1986) (Section 3651 of the Probation Act "gives broad
    authority to district courts to impose conditions of probation
    that in the judgment of the sentencing judge serve to
    rehabilitate the criminal or secure compliance with court orders,
    and otherwise are in the public interest.") (holding, however,
    that FPA precludes monetary penalties other than those enumerated
    in the statute); United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 
    827 F.2d 424
    ,
    435 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that joint and several liability for
    entire actual loss could have been imposed on each fraud
    defendant as condition of probation), cert. denied, 
    484 U.S. 1042
    , 
    108 S. Ct. 773
    (1988); United States v. Tzakis, 
    736 F.2d 867
    , 871 (2d Cir. 1984) (holding that district court did not
    abuse its discretion by imposing on defendant, as condition of
    probation, joint and several liability with co-defendant for
    restitution of full amount of losses caused by their crime).
    -31-
    31
    whether the FPA or the VWPA authorized its actions, the general
    rule is that the VWPA controls."), cert. denied, 
    112 S. Ct. 1163
    (1992).
    Restitution under the VWPA is a criminal penalty and a
    component of the defendant's sentence.   See United States v.
    Snider, 
    957 F.2d 703
    , 705 (9th Cir. 1992); 
    id. at 1113
    ("Because
    restitution under the VWPA is a criminal penalty, its imposition
    must comport with the substantive and procedural requirements of
    due process.").   Therefore, when the legality of a restitution
    award is questioned, we review that award de novo.   See United
    States v. Badaracco, 
    954 F.2d 928
    , 942 (3d Cir. 1992) (stating
    that review of restitution order is bifurcated:   plenary review
    over whether the award is permitted under law is followed by
    review of the particular award for abuse of discretion); United
    States v. Cook, 
    952 F.2d 1262
    , 1263 (10th Cir. 1991); 
    Snider, 945 F.2d at 1110
    .   If we conclude that the sentence is legal, we then
    review the restitution award for abuse of discretion.   See United
    States v. Gelais, 
    952 F.2d 90
    , 97 (5th Cir. 1992) (finding that
    the "district court neither abused its discretion in choosing not
    to articulate its findings nor in determining the amount of
    restitution"); United States v. Ryan, 
    874 F.2d 1052
    , 1054 (5th
    Cir. 1989) (Where defendant challenged award of restitution
    pursuant to the VWPA, holding that "[d]istrict courts are
    accorded broad discretion in ordering restitution.").
    -32-
    32
    2
    The government charged, and the jury found, Chaney guilty of
    (1) the general, substantive charge of conspiring to make false
    entries in Western Bank records and (2) making a false statement
    on the Officer's Questionnaire--that is, Chaney failed to
    disclose that she had made extensions of credit to benefit those
    whose names did not appear on bank records in connection with
    these extensions.44   This scheme for which Chaney was convicted
    is amorphous by nature, but we have found that Count One was
    defined with enough specificity to sustain Chaney's challenge to
    its sufficiency.45
    Restitution under the VWPA is limited to losses resulting
    from the specific conduct underlying Chaney's convictions.     See
    Hughey v. United States, __ U. S. __, 
    110 S. Ct. 1979
    , 1983-84
    (1990).   Although there is overlap between the charges within
    Chaney's indictment,46 Chaney was convicted on the more general
    Count One--the conspiracy count alleging the overall scheme.    We
    will not be distracted by inconsistencies in the jury's verdict:
    Hughey holds that "Congress intended restitution to be tied to
    the loss caused by the offense of conviction[,]"47 and, as in
    Hughey, our analysis builds upon the conduct for which Chaney was
    44
    
    See supra
    note 17 (summarizing indictment).
    45
    
    See supra
    Part II.B.
    46
    
    See supra
    note 17.
    47
    Hughey, __ U.S. at __, 110 S. Ct. at 1984 (emphasis
    added).
    -33-
    33
    convicted.   Accordingly, we reject Chaney's proposal that we turn
    the Hughey rule inside-out, interpreting it as "Restitution under
    the Victim and Witness Protect Act is forbidden for losses that
    may be attributed to conduct that is the basis of charges for
    which the defendant is acquitted."48
    48
    Chaney's interpretation of Hughey is simply too broad.
    We are not confronted with a situation in which Chaney was
    acquitted of conduct that completely and conclusively encompasses
    the conduct underlying her convictions. At the very least, the
    conduct supporting her convictions protrudes outside the edges of
    the more specific conduct underlying her acquittals. 
    See supra
    note 17 (summarizing indictment). This disparity in breadth
    between the conduct underlying Chaney's convictions and the
    conduct underlying her acquittals distinguishes Chaney's case
    from those she cites as authority--cases in which defendants were
    charged with specificity and courts held that they could not be
    required to make restitution for losses resulting from this same
    specific conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Kane, 
    944 F.2d 1406
    , 1415 (9th Cir. 1991) (where overt acts charged in counts on
    which defendant was acquitted were same as overt acts alleged in
    conspiracy count on which defendant was convicted, holding that
    defendant could not be required to make restitution for losses
    from conduct for which defendant had been specifically charged
    and acquitted); United States v. Sharp, 
    941 F.2d 811
    , 813 (9th
    Cir. 1991) (holding that defendant could not be ordered to make
    restitution based on entire $8,500,000 wire fraud scheme when he
    pleaded guilty to only one count of wire fraud alleging a $3,000
    fraudulent transfer). This same distinction holds true for
    Hughey, where, pursuant to a plea agreement, Hughey pled guilty
    to using one unauthorized credit card and the district court
    ordered restitution for his theft and use of 21 cards. Noting
    that "[t]he essence of a plea agreement is that both the
    prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid potential
    losses[,]" the United States Supreme Court reversed the district
    court's restitution order, holding that a VWPA restitution award
    is authorized only for the losses caused by the one unauthorized
    credit card use that was the basis of Hughey's conviction. Our
    survey of other cases--cases decided subsequently to those cited
    by the parties--limiting restitution orders in accordance with
    Hughey also involve instances where a defendant has been charged
    with and convicted of specific conduct and courts have limited
    restitution to the losses resulting from that specific conduct;
    in many of these cases, as in Hughey, defendants entered into
    plea agreements which constrained restitution. See, e.g., United
    States v. Clark, 
    931 F.2d 292
    , 297 (5th Cir. 1991) (where
    defendant pled guilty to four counts of aiding and abetting false
    -34-
    34
    It is well-established that, as a participant in the false
    entry conspiracy, Chaney is legally liable for all the actions of
    her co-conspirators in furtherance of this crime.   See United
    States v. Kissel, 
    218 U.S. 601
    , 608, 
    31 S. Ct. 124
    , 126 (1910)
    ("[T]he conspiracy continues up to the time of abandonment or
    success.") ("A conspiracy is a partnership in criminal
    purposes . . . [and] an overt act of one partner may be the act
    of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that
    act."); see also Hyde v. United States, 
    225 U.S. 347
    , 369, 32 S.
    Ct. 793, 803 (1912) (the liability of an individual conspirator
    continues until the conspiracy accomplishes its goals or that
    conspirator withdraws, the latter of which requires an
    affirmative action).   Conspiracy is, therefore, a continuing
    statements to a federally insured savings and loan, holding that
    government cannot exceed convictions it bargained for by ordering
    restitution for other counts); see also United States v. Young,
    
    953 F.2d 1288
    , 1290 (11th Cir. 1992) (where defendant approved at
    least thirty loans in exchange for "gifts" while acting as a bank
    loan officer, and then pled guilty to only two counts of
    accepting and receiving a commission or gift in connection with a
    loan approval, holding that restitution had to be limited to
    losses resulting from those two offenses); United States v.
    Wainwright, 
    938 F.2d 1096
    , 1098 (10th Cir. 1991) (where defendant
    pled guilty to one count of bank fraud, holding that restitution
    ordered encompasses losses stemming from charges which were
    dismissed).
    Moreover, even if we were to follow the approach Chaney
    proposes by eliminating all conduct for which Chaney was
    acquitted, Chaney was generally charged and convicted of
    conspiring to make false entries in Western Bank records. Chaney
    was acquitted only of specific conduct--conduct included within
    Charge One but not encompassing the conduct alleged in that
    charge. Therefore, the district court was not precluded from
    basing its restitution award on losses resulting from the conduct
    protruding beyond her acquittals, such as the false entries made
    in connection with the three renewals--November 1985, May 1986,
    and September 1986--of the $645,000 loan. See generally supra
    note 39 (listing other instances of false entries and omissions).
    -35-
    35
    offense and, in accordance with this principle, "[t]he district
    court had the authority to order restitution for the losses
    caused by the entire fraud scheme, not merely for the losses
    caused by the specific acts of fraud proved by the government at
    trial."   United States v. Brothers, 
    955 F.2d 493
    , 497 (7th Cir.
    1992) (holding that restitution order did not exceed scope of
    convictions where defendant, challenging that order under Hughey,
    argued that district court could only require restitution for
    checks he was convicted of improperly receiving) (remanded on
    grounds that restitution order was unacceptably vague),
    discussing United States v. Bennett, 
    943 F.2d 738
    , 741 (7th Cir.
    1991); see United States v. Wallen, 
    953 F.2d 3
    , 5-6 (1st Cir.
    1991) (holding that, "although it may encompass a number of
    underlying acts, a RICO conviction is a conviction for a single
    offense" for VWPA purposes and a defendant may be ordered to pay
    restitution for all losses resulting from this continuing
    offense); 
    Bennett, 943 F.2d at 741
    (7th Cir. 1991) (where eighty
    acts constituting mail fraud scheme were discussed in plea
    agreement but only two specific fraudulent acts supported
    defendant's two mail fraud convictions, holding that district
    court had authority to order restitution for losses caused by
    entire scheme).
    Because they caused Western Bank to issue and then not
    question the cumulative loans, the false entries effected by
    Chaney and her co-conspirators,49 along with Chaney's failure to
    49
    
    See supra
    note 39 and accompanying text.
    -36-
    36
    accurately respond to question five on the Officer's
    Questionnaire,50 were part of a continuing conspiracy offense and
    they are inextricably related to the losses suffered as a result
    of default on the loans.51   Accordingly, we affirm both the
    district court's award of restitution and the joint and several
    liability imposed upon Chaney for that restitution.52
    50
    
    See supra
    note 18.
    51
    Chaney's convictions do not leave us with unidentified
    victims. See United States v. Angelica, 
    951 F.2d 1007
    , 1009 (9th
    Cir. 1991) (ordering district court to redetermine amount of
    restitution where restitution order encompassed losses sustained
    by fifteen victims, seven of whom were not subjects of counts of
    conviction). Rather, Chaney's entire case centered around a
    focused conspiracy by a related group of individuals to gain
    access to Western Bank funds through specific loans. The loss
    resulting from this conspiracy--the sum total of loans made
    possible by Chaney's misstatements and failure to disclose
    information--was also precisely defined. Therefore, although the
    jury did acquit Chaney of charges that rely upon specific
    instances of conduct within this overall conspiracy, Chaney was
    convicted of generally participating in a well-defined
    conspiracy--a conspiracy with identified actors and focused
    objectives. This distinguishes Chaney from United States v.
    McHenry, 
    952 F.2d 328
    (9th Cir. 1991), amended, 
    1992 WL 103088
    ,
    where the Ninth Circuit held that,
    [a]ccording to the district court, however, the unnamed
    `victims' of the conspiracy are entitled to a refund.
    Apparently the district court assumed the jury believed
    that the defendants committed each and every act
    alleged by the government. This assumption is not
    warranted by the verdict. At most, it reveals that the
    jury did not believe the government proved mail and
    wire fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, but that the
    government did satisfy this burden with respect to the
    conspiracy count.
    
    Id. at *3.
         52
    See United States v. Hand, 
    863 F.2d 1100
    , 1106 (3d Cir.
    1988) (Holding that, in ordering restitution under the VWPA, the
    fact that the burden of restitution lays entirely on one
    defendant were two co-defendants were equally culpable did not
    offend the Constitution and "certainly . . . did not constitute
    an abuse of discretion."); see also United States v. All Star
    Industries, No. 91-2439 (5th Cir. 1992) (holding that district
    -37-
    37
    III
    For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.
    court did not abuse its discretion in imposing joint and several
    liability for all losses to victims of four-year conspiracy
    proved at trial); United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 
    827 F.2d 424
    , 435 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that joint and several
    liability for entire actual loss could have been imposed on each
    fraud defendant as condition of probation); cert. denied, 
    484 U.S. 1042
    , 
    108 S. Ct. 773
    (1988); United States v. Tzakis, 
    736 F.2d 867
    , 871 (2d Cir. 1984) (holding that district court did not
    abuse its discretion by imposing on defendant, as condition of
    probation, joint and several liability with co-defendant for
    restitution of full amount of losses caused by their crime).
    -38-
    38
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 91-8206

Filed Date: 6/19/1992

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2014

Authorities (62)

United States v. Edward E. Dockray , 943 F.2d 152 ( 1991 )

United States v. David A. Dashney , 937 F.2d 532 ( 1991 )

United States v. Ioannis Tzakis , 736 F.2d 867 ( 1984 )

United States v. Patricia Hand , 863 F.2d 1100 ( 1988 )

United States v. James D. Wainwright , 938 F.2d 1096 ( 1991 )

United States v. Charles Young , 953 F.2d 1288 ( 1992 )

United States v. Victor Arditti, United States of America v.... , 955 F.2d 331 ( 1992 )

United States v. James L. Kington and Don Earney , 875 F.2d 1091 ( 1989 )

United States v. James R. Goff, Benjamin Phillip Barrington,... , 847 F.2d 149 ( 1988 )

United States v. Barry F. Bryant , 770 F.2d 1283 ( 1985 )

United States v. James C. Gordon , 780 F.2d 1165 ( 1986 )

United States v. Fernando Molinar-Apodaca, Enrique Felix-... , 889 F.2d 1417 ( 1989 )

United States v. Gerald Kress , 944 F.2d 155 ( 1991 )

United States v. Ernest J. Badaracco, Jr. , 954 F.2d 928 ( 1992 )

United States v. Jean Marie St. Gelais , 952 F.2d 90 ( 1992 )

United States v. George Ayala, Raul Alfredo Portillo, and ... , 887 F.2d 62 ( 1989 )

United States v. Nelson Bell , 678 F.2d 547 ( 1982 )

United States v. William N. Logan, Jr. And Eddie Stanley , 949 F.2d 1370 ( 1991 )

United States v. Kim Allen Stanley, John R. Spiczak, Evan N.... , 765 F.2d 1224 ( 1985 )

United States v. Roy Ryan , 874 F.2d 1052 ( 1989 )

View All Authorities »