Case: 16-17229 Date Filed: 07/31/2018 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17229
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:15-cr-00141-GAP-GJK-14
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STEVEN GRODEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2018)
Before MARCUS, BRANCH and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Groden appeals his conviction for conspiracy to transfer funds
internationally to promote specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1956(h), challenging the district court’s denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion
Case: 16-17229 Date Filed: 07/31/2018 Page: 2 of 4
for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in
denying his Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence
presented at trial was weak, limited, and insufficient to sustain a conviction. After
thorough review, we affirm.
The denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal is reviewed de novo.
United States v. Evans, 473 F.3d 1115, 1118 (11th Cir. 2006). In reviewing the
denial of a motion for acquittal, we ask whether, after viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the government, could any rational trier of fact have found
all the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.
Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 944 (11th Cir. 2006).
In order to convict a defendant for conspiracy to commit money laundering
under § 1956(h), the government must prove that: (1) two or more persons agreed
to commit money laundering; and (2) that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily
joined the conspiracy. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); United States v. Martinelli, 454
F.3d 1300, 1310 (11th Cir. 2006). Further, to obtain a conviction for transferring
funds internationally to promote specified unlawful activity, under §
1956(a)(2)(A), the government must prove the defendant (1) transported,
transmitted, or transferred money internationally, (2) with the intent to promote a
specific unlawful activity. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A).
2
Case: 16-17229 Date Filed: 07/31/2018 Page: 3 of 4
Here, the district court did not err in denying Groden’s motion for judgment
of acquittal on the charge of conspiracy to transfer funds internationally to promote
specified unlawful activity -- which, in this case, was the manufacture and
distribution of steroids. At trial, a law enforcement officer testified that Groden’s
co-defendant, Vincent Sperti, had been involved in manufacturing steroids with
raw materials procured from China and selling those steroids to customers in the
United States through a website on the “dark web.” Groden admitted at trial that
he had purchased steroids from Sperti, and other witnesses testified that Groden
had attended a meeting of Sperti’s where the steroid business was discussed,
indicating that Groden was aware of Sperti’s business selling steroids. These
witnesses also testified that Sperti had asked them to send money to China for him,
and that they had done so using their real identities, or after giving Sperti
permission to use their real identities. Groden’s name was found in Western Union
records associated with three transactions to China, and Groden admitted that when
a different transfer had failed, he had gone to recover the funds for Sperti and had
exchanged text messages with Sperti to return the money. Sperti testified that
when he picked up the money from Groden, he had paid Groden in steroids for the
pickup and had used the returned money to continue his steroid trafficking to send
more money to China.
3
Case: 16-17229 Date Filed: 07/31/2018 Page: 4 of 4
On this record, a rational trier of fact could have viewed this evidence as
proof, if the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Groden’s identity
was used, that Groden had either conducted at least one of the transfers to China or
approved the use of his identity for the transfer. Moreover, a rational trier of fact
was entitled to infer that Groden’s knowledge and willingness to pick up the
money for Sperti meant that he knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); Martinelli, 454 F.3d at 1310. Thus, after viewing the
evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable
inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor, we conclude
that the jury could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the government
presented sufficient evidence to sustain Groden’s conviction. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d
at 944.
AFFIRMED.
4