## Facts

- James Scott Mann and William M. Moore were convicted in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas for multiple offenses arising from their dealings with Jefferson Savings and Loan Association in McAllen, Texas, and its successor institutions.
- The prosecution centered on transactions involving Jefferson’s acquisition and handling of oil and gas assets, including the late-1982 purchase of the “Tartan properties,” and related financial and tax conduct.
- Count 1 charged Mann, Moore, and others with a multi-object conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The indictment alleged an agreement to:
  - defraud the United States by frustrating Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) oversight of Jefferson,
  - violate 18 U.S.C. § 657 by misapplying Jefferson’s funds,
  - violate 18 U.S.C. § 1006 by making false entries in Jefferson’s books and records,
  - defraud the United States by impeding the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and
  - violate 26 U.S.C. § 7206 by filing false income tax returns.
- Mann and Moore appealed, challenging (among other issues) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Count 1 and various related substantive counts.
- They also argued Count 1 was barred by the statute of limitations. Moore contended that the conspiracy conviction could not stand if any one of the five alleged objectives was time-barred and that the government failed to prove an overt act in furtherance during the limitations period.
- Mann and Moore further argued that any acts occurring within the limitations period were merely efforts to hide an already completed conspiracy, which would not extend the conspiracy for limitations purposes.
- Mann separately argued he withdrew from the conspiracy before the limitations period, so later acts should not be attributed to him.
- The United States cross-appealed a sentencing issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Mann’s and Moore’s convictions on the § 371 conspiracy count (Count 1) and challenged related counts.
2. Whether Count 1 was time-barred because one or more of the conspiracy’s alleged objectives fell outside the limitations period.
3. Whether the government proved at least one overt act in furtherance of the charged conspiracy within the limitations period.
4. Whether the acts shown within the limitations period were only post-offense concealment (insufficient to extend a conspiracy) rather than acts advancing the conspiracy’s objectives.
5. Whether Mann proved withdrawal from the conspiracy by an affirmative act, reasonably communicated to co-conspirators or law enforcement, before the limitations period.
6. Whether the district court erred in sentencing, including the issue raised in the government’s cross-appeal.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the convictions and the district court’s judgment.
- Applying the deferential sufficiency standard (viewing evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict), the court held a rational jury could find Mann and Moore knowingly joined the charged § 371 conspiracy and that overt acts were committed in furtherance.
- The court rejected the statute-of-limitations challenges to Count 1, concluding the conspiracy was a continuing offense and that the government proved an overt act in furtherance within the limitations period.
- The court rejected the argument that the government proved only acts of concealment; the challenged conduct could be treated as furthering the conspiracy’s objectives rather than merely covering up a completed scheme.
- The court rejected Mann’s withdrawal defense because he did not carry his burden to show an affirmative withdrawal communicated in a way reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators or authorities.
- The court also rejected the government’s sentencing cross-appeal and left the sentences undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- To prove a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government must show: (1) an agreement to pursue an unlawful objective (either to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States), (2) the defendant’s knowing and voluntary participation, and (3) an overt act by a conspirator in furtherance of the agreement.
- On sufficiency review, the court views the evidence, reasonable inferences, and credibility choices in the light most favorable to the verdict; the conviction stands if any rational juror could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- A conspiracy is a continuing offense that lasts until its objectives are achieved or abandoned; for limitations purposes, the clock runs from the last overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- For a single § 371 conspiracy alleging multiple objectives, the government must prove the conspiracy continued into the limitations period and that at least one overt act in furtherance occurred within the period; the presence of multiple objectives does not require reversal merely because some objectives or early conduct occurred earlier.
- Acts that merely conceal a completed conspiracy do not extend it for limitations purposes, but conduct within the limitations period may qualify as an overt act when it advances, protects, or helps realize the conspiracy’s objectives.
- Withdrawal requires an affirmative act inconsistent with continued participation, reasonably communicated to co-conspirators or law enforcement; the defendant bears the burden of proving withdrawal, and mere inactivity is not enough.

## Conclusion

United States v. Mann affirmed Mann’s and Moore’s convictions arising from their dealings with Jefferson Savings and Loan, including a multi-object § 371 conspiracy to obstruct federal thrift oversight, misapply funds, falsify records, and commit tax-related fraud. The Fifth Circuit held the evidence supported the verdict, Count 1 was not time-barred because the government proved an overt act in furtherance within the limitations period, later conduct could be treated as furthering the conspiracy rather than mere concealment, Mann failed to prove withdrawal, and the court left the sentences intact despite the government’s cross-appeal.


United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840 (1998)