## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Bonnie Schreiber for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341), wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343), and theft of more than $1,000 of federal money (18 U.S.C. § 641) based on her receipt of federal workers’ compensation disability benefits.
- To keep receiving disability benefits, Schreiber periodically submitted certifications representing that she remained eligible for benefits.
- At trial, the government introduced evidence that Schreiber continued to certify eligibility and receive benefits after she had regained the ability to work.
- The evidence also showed that, by the time of her arrest, Schreiber lived an active lifestyle that included hunting, fishing, boating, camping, horseback riding, snowmobiling, woodcutting, and training as a volunteer firefighter.
- Schreiber reported many of those activities to her doctors and therapists, and she relied on those disclosures to argue she was not trying to deceive anyone.
- The government presented testimony that Schreiber warned a neighbor that, if anyone asked about Schreiber’s outdoor activities, the neighbor should deny any knowledge of them.
- A jury convicted Schreiber on all counts.
- Schreiber appealed to the Ninth Circuit, arguing the government’s circumstantial proof was insufficient to overcome her own trial testimony that she lacked fraudulent intent and did not know that receiving benefits to which she was not entitled was a crime.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Schreiber acted with fraudulent intent for mail and wire fraud.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Schreiber knowingly stole or converted federal money in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.
3. Whether the jury could rely on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences to reject Schreiber’s testimony denying intent and knowledge.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Schreiber’s convictions.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the court held that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Schreiber intended to defraud by continuing to certify eligibility and receive disability benefits after she had regained the ability to work.
- The court held that the jury could also find the knowledge element of § 641 satisfied based on the same course of conduct—continuing to obtain and keep federal funds while not entitled to them.
- The court concluded that Schreiber’s warning to a neighbor to deny knowledge of her outdoor activities supported an inference of consciousness of wrongdoing and could be considered alongside the evidence of her ongoing benefit certifications.
- The court rejected Schreiber’s argument that her disclosures to medical providers required acquittal, explaining that the jury was free to weigh competing inferences and disbelieve her account.
- The court emphasized that resolving conflicts in the evidence and assessing credibility were tasks for the jury, not the appellate court on sufficiency review.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Fraudulent intent for mail and wire fraud may be proven through circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from conduct, including continued representations made to obtain money or property.
- The knowledge element of 18 U.S.C. § 641 may be established by circumstantial evidence showing the defendant knew she was not entitled to the federal funds she obtained or retained.
- Evidence suggesting concealment or an attempt to prevent others from disclosing information may support an inference of intent and knowledge.
- On appeal, courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility; the jury may accept the government’s theory and reject the defendant’s testimony.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Schreiber’s mail-fraud, wire-fraud, and § 641 theft convictions because the trial evidence permitted a rational jury to infer that she continued certifying eligibility and receiving federal disability benefits after regaining the ability to work, and that her conduct—along with testimony that she asked a neighbor to deny knowledge of her activities—supported findings of fraudulent intent and knowing conversion of federal funds despite her contrary trial testimony.


United States v. Schreiber, 458 Fed. Appx. 672 (2011)