Order — United States v. Smith (Dkt. 266, N.D. Miss.)

Summary

An order of U.S. District Judge Michael P. Mills in United States v. Felicia Smith, No. 3:23-CR-086-MPM-RP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, filed November 5, 2024 as Doc. 266. It denies the defendant's Amended Motion for Acquittal and her Motion for New Trial, and dismisses her original Motion for Acquittal as moot. The order's account of the facts states that Lakeith Faulkner, an SBA employee, created a fake Schedule C for her Economic Injury Disaster Loan application, that the loan was approved for $199,000, and that on March 3, 2022 she sent a $50,000 check payable to Norman Beckwood. It notes the June 2023 indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and the trial, and finds the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case: 3:23-cr-00086-MPM-RP Doc #: 266 Filed: 11/05/24 1 of 4 PageID #: 1193




                     IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.                                                       CAUSE NO. 3:23-CR-086-MPM-RP

FELICIA SMITH

                                            ORDER

       This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Felicia Smith’s Amended Motion for

Acquittal [257] or New Trial [243]. Having filed an Amended Motion for Acquittal [257],

Defendant’s original Motion for Acquittal [242] is dismissed as moot. For the following reasons,

both the Amended Motion for Acquittal [257] and New Trial [243] are denied.

                          FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       Ms. Smith’s conviction arises out of her participation in a scheme concocted by Lakeith

Faulkner and Norman Beckwood to defraud the government by submitting fraudulent Economic

Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) applications to the Small Business Association (“SBA”).

       In July 2020, prior to her involvement in the scheme, Ms. Smith applied for an EIDL

entirely on her own. In her application, Ms. Smith falsely claimed to have a business operating in

2019 with $75,000 in gross revenue and $20,000 in cost of goods sold. Her application was denied.

       Sometime in or before January 2021, Ms. Smith’s childhood friend, Mr. Beckwood,

connected her with Mr. Faulkner, an employee of the SBA. Using his insider knowledge about the

SBA, Mr. Faulkner helped individuals receive EIDLs by creating fraudulent applications on their

behalf in exchange for payment. With the help of Mr. Faulkner, Ms. Smith was able to reactivate

her initial EIDL application for reconsideration by the SBA. Mr. Faulkner created a fake Schedule

C and submitted it to the SBA on Ms. Smith’s behalf. Ms. Smith’s loan was approved, and she

    Case: 3:23-cr-00086-MPM-RP Doc #: 266 Filed: 11/05/24 2 of 4 PageID #: 1194




received $199,000. On March 3, 2022, Ms. Smith sent Mr. Faulkner a check for $50,000 made

payable to Mr. Beckwood.

       In June 2023, the Grand Jury indicted Ms. Smith, along with ten other individuals, on one

count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and one count of aiding

and abetting wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1343. On September 11, 2024, after a three-

day trial, the jury convicted Ms. Smith on both counts. Ms. Smith subsequently filed a Motion for

Acquittal [257] or New Trial [243].

                                      LEGAL STANDARDS

       Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) provides that a court may set aside a jury's verdict

and enter a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case. The standard for reviewing such a motion is

“whether a reasonable jury could conclude that the evidence presented, viewed in the light most

favorable to the government, established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United

States v. Duncan, 164 F.3d 239, 242 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d

593, 597 (5th Cir.1994)). While the court may “weigh evidence and assess the credibility of the

witnesses during its consideration of the motion for new trial, . . . [n]o such discretion is allowed

when the court decides a motion for a judgment of acquittal.” United States v. Robertson, 110 F.3d

1113, 1117 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Tibbs v. Florida, 457 U.S. 31, 37–38 (1982)).

       Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a court to grant a new trial

“if the interest of justice so requires.” In considering a motion under Rule 33(a), “[t]he trial judge

may weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of the witnesses[.]” (quoting United States v.

Arnold, 416 F.3d 349, 360 (5th Cir. 2005)) (additional citation omitted). The district court’s

discretion, however, is not unlimited as it “may not reweigh the evidence and set aside the verdict

simply because it feels some other result would be more reasonable.” Id. (quoting Arnold, 416

    Case: 3:23-cr-00086-MPM-RP Doc #: 266 Filed: 11/05/24 3 of 4 PageID #: 1195




F.3d at 360; Robertson, 110 F.3d at 1118). Instead, “[t]he evidence must preponderate heavily

against the verdict, such that it would be a miscarriage of justice to let the verdict stand.” Id.

(quoting Arnold, 416 F.3d at 360; Robertson, 110 F.3d at 1118).

                                          DISCUSSION

       To obtain a conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, the government must prove

beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) two or more persons made an agreement to commit wire fraud;

(2) that the defendant knew the unlawful purpose of the agreement; and (3) that the defendant

joined in the agreement willfully, that is, with the intent to further the unlawful purpose. 18 U.S.C.

§§ 1343, 1349. Further, to prove aiding and abetting wire fraud, the government must prove that

(1) the offense of wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 was

committed by some person; (2) that the defendant associated with the criminal venture; (3) that

the defendant purposefully participated in the criminal venture; and (4) that the defendant sought

by action to make that venture successful.

       Ms. Smith claims she is entitled to an acquittal because Mr. Faulkner lacked credibility,

Mr. Faulkner’s testimony was motivated by self-serving interests, and the government’s case relied

solely on assumptions, inferences, and speculation. As previously mentioned, this Court may not

re-weigh evidence and assess witness credibility when deciding a motion for acquittal. Robertson,

110 F.3d at 1117. The jurors are the ultimate arbiters of a witness’s credibility, and the evidence

should be viewed in the light most favorable to their verdict. United States v. Shoemaker, 746 F.3d

614, 623 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Osum, 943 F.2d 1394, 1405 (5th Cir.1991). Given the

overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court finds that the government met its burden.

       Ms. Smith further claims a new trial is warranted because the verdict is against the weight

of the evidence and contrary to principles of justice and equality. As the government points out,

    Case: 3:23-cr-00086-MPM-RP Doc #: 266 Filed: 11/05/24 4 of 4 PageID #: 1196




Ms. Smith’s Motion for New Trial [243] does not allege any specific issues with the jury’s verdict

or the evidence presented by the government at trial but instead makes only generic claims. In

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the Court finds there was

sufficient evidence to support Ms. Smith’s conviction.

                                        CONCLUSION

       For the reasons stated above, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Amended Motion

for Judgment of Acquittal [257] and Motion for New Trial [243] are DENIED and Defendant’s

Motion for Acquittal [242] is DISMISSED as moot.

       SO ORDERED this the 5th day of November, 2024.



                                                     /s/Michael P. Mills_______
                                                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
                                                    NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.msnd.47978.266.0.pdf

Size

117,202 bytes

SHA-256

ac84e9c11dd0be224cb9068781cfbc1976c69405a09b2b6ccec82d9099615c39

Our copy

gov.uscourts.msnd.47978.266.0.pdf

Original

archive.org