United States v. Antonio Puerta

MEMORANDUM

Antonio Medina Puerta (“Medina Puer-ta”) appeals from his conviction for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse the district court’s denial of Medina Puerta’s Rule 29 motion, vacate his conviction, and remand for entry of a judgment of acquittal.

Medina Puerta was charged with and convicted of three counts of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2): two based on wire transfers to a foreign bank and one based on the deposit of a check to a domestic account. As the government concedes, the act of depositing a check is hot a false statement itself and cannot support a conviction under § 1344(2) on its own. United States v. King, 200 F.Sd 1207, 1218 (9th Cir.1999) (citing Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279, 284-85 , 102 S.Ct. 3088 , 73 L.Ed.2d 767 (1982)). Thus, there must be some other “deceptive conduct” to serve as the basis for liability under § 1344(2). Id.

Importantly, after Puerta filed his appeal in this case, the Supreme Court provided additional guidance for interpreting the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2) in Loughrin v. United States, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2384 , 189 L.Ed.2d 411 (2014). In…