Case: 17-14825 Date Filed: 01/04/2019 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-14825 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20657-WJZ-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus EMMANUELY GERMAIN, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (January 4, 2019) Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-14825 Date Filed: 01/04/2019 Page: 2 of 12 Emmanuely Germain appeals his convictions for 1 count of conspiracy to commit an offense to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and 3 counts of making a false statement in an immigration application, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a). On appeal, Germain first argues that the government did not present sufficient evidence demonstrating that he had knowledge of the conspiracy to commit a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) or that he knowingly made a false statement on an immigration application. He also argues that the Government did not present sufficient evidence that venue was properly found in the Southern District of Florida. Second, he argues that there were a series of errors that, cumulatively, impacted the fairness of his trial because the district court: (1) excluded hearsay evidence of Germain’s father, who was also his codefendant, taking full responsibility for the charges; (2) admitted evidence from three government witnesses identifying Germain’s signature; and (3) did not instruct the jury on the essential elements of presentation of an immigration application with a false statement and venue. I. We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices in the verdict’s favor. United States v. Godwin, 765 F.3d 1306, 1319 (11th Cir. 2014). The verdict must be affirmed unless there is 2 Case: 17-14825 Date Filed: 01/04/2019 Page: 3 of 12 no reasonable construction of the evidence from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 1319-20. A jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence. Id. at 1320. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence exclude every reasonable theory of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt. Id. Moreover, credibility determinations are left to the jury. United States v. Flores, 572 F.3d 1254, 1263 (11th Cir. 2009). We will not disregard them unless the testimony is unbelievable on its face or incredible as a matter of law, meaning it contains facts that the witness could not have possibly observed or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature. Id. We apply the same standard in evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence regardless of if the evidence presented was direct or circumstantial. United States v. Focia, 869 F.3d 1269, 1279 (11th Cir. 2017). However, if the government relied on circumstantial evidence, “reasonable inferences, not mere speculation, must support ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals