United States v. Ramirez M. Ivy — Order on Motion for Acquittal, Northern District of Mississippi (Doc. 265)

Summary

An order in United States v. Ramirez M. Ivy, Cause 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 # 265 and signed by United States District Judge Michael P. Mills. It denies the defendant's Motion for Acquittal [255] under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c), filed after a jury convicted Ivy on September 11, 2024 of conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and aiding and abetting wire fraud. The order recounts that an SBA employee altered Ivy's Schedule C and resubmitted an EIDL application, that the loan paid $199,900, and that Ivy later sent a check for $45,000. It rejects the motion's challenges to witness credibility, stating that the court may not re-weigh evidence and that the government met its burden.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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

Full text

     Case: 3:23-cr-00086-MPM-RP Doc #: 265 Filed: 11/05/24 1 of 3 PageID #: 1190




                      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

RAMIREZ M. IVY

                                              ORDER

       This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Ramirez Ivy’s Motion for Acquittal [255]

filed after his conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aiding and abetting wire fraud.

For the following reasons, the Motion is denied.

                           FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       Mr. Ivy’s conviction arises out of his 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 August 2021, prior to his involvement in the scheme, Mr. Ivy applied for an EIDL

entirely on his own. In his application, Mr. Ivy significantly inflated his gross revenue for the year

2019. His application was denied.

       Sometime in or before December 2021, Mr. Ivy’s brother-in-law, Mr. Beckwood,

connected him 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. Mr. Ivy and Mr. Faulkner began communicating, via text

message, about Mr. Ivy’s EIDL application. With the help of Mr. Faulkner, Mr. Ivy was able to

reactivate his initial EIDL application for reconsideration by the SBA. Mr. Faulkner altered Mr.

Ivy’s Schedule C and submitted it to the SBA on Mr. Ivy’s behalf. Mr. Ivy’s loan was approved,
    Case: 3:23-cr-00086-MPM-RP Doc #: 265 Filed: 11/05/24 2 of 3 PageID #: 1191




and he received $199,900. On March 1, 2022, Mr. Ivy sent Mr. Faulkner a check for $45,000 made

payable to Mr. Beckwood.

         In June 2023, the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Ivy, 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 Mr. Ivy on both counts. He subsequently filed this Motion for Acquittal

[255].

                                      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)).

                                           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
    Case: 3:23-cr-00086-MPM-RP Doc #: 265 Filed: 11/05/24 3 of 3 PageID #: 1192




(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.

       Mr. Ivy claims he is entitled to an acquittal because (1) the evidence presented did not meet

the government’s standard of proof, (2) Mr. Faulkner, by his own admission and actions, is

inherently dishonest, (3) Mr. Faulkner’s testimony was motivated by self-serving interests, and (4)

the government’s case relied upon 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, including but not limited to the text messages between Mr. Ivy and Mr. Faulkner, this

Court finds that the government met its burden.

                                        CONCLUSION

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

Judgment of Acquittal [255] is DENIED.

       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

265-order.pdf

Size

115,372 bytes

SHA-256

80b39a4f6aee73c6abeb199a94a9504a0db0aa846e7406bc73a161c16c90e574

Our copy

265-order.pdf

Original

archive.org