## Facts

- A fraudulent scheme helped English-language-deficient applicants obtain commercial drivers’ licenses (CDLs) through translated test questions and answers and other improper assistance.
- Ernest White sold translated CDL test materials, including translations of correct answers, to applicants who were not fluent in English.
- Osman Abdullahi supplied translations to White.
- White bribed a CDL test administrator to help certain applicants pass the driving (behind-the-wheel) portion of the exam.
- Elias Mohamed worked for Abdullahi and was alleged to have knowingly assisted the scheme by helping refer applicants to White and facilitating the operation.
- At trial, White testified that Mohamed knew about the bribery arrangement and helped refer students as part of the operation.

## Issues

1. In a prosecution for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, whether the overt-act element requires proof that the defendant personally committed an overt act, or whether an overt act by any conspirator suffices if the defendant knowingly joined the conspiracy.
2. Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury that it could convict even without proof that Mohamed personally committed an overt act, so long as at least one conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the jury instruction correctly stated the law under 18 U.S.C. § 371.
- The overt-act requirement was satisfied if any one conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy after the defendant knowingly joined.
- The court rejected the argument that the jury had to find Mohamed personally committed an overt act.

## Legal Principles

- For a conspiracy charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government must prove: (1) an agreement to commit an offense against the United States, (2) the defendant knowingly joined the agreement, and (3) at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- The § 371 overt-act element may be satisfied by a single overt act committed by any coconspirator; it is not necessary that each conspirator personally commit an overt act.
- Once a defendant knowingly joins a conspiracy, the overt acts of coconspirators taken in furtherance of the common scheme may satisfy the statutory overt-act requirement for the conspiracy charge.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Mohamed’s § 371 conspiracy conviction, holding that the district court properly instructed the jury that the overt-act element is met by an overt act committed by any conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, even if the defendant did not personally commit the act, provided the defendant knowingly joined the agreement.


United States v. Mohamed, 600 F.3d 1000 (8th Cir. 2010)