USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
Nos. 94-1052
94-1322
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
LEO HAMEL,
Defendant, Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
Boudin, Circuit Judge, and
_____________
Barbadoro,* District Judge.
______________
____________________
Michael C. Bourbeau, Esq. with whom

Bourbeau and Bourbeau was

_________________________
_____________________
brief for appellant.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, with whom
Nad
_________________
___
Pellegrini,
Assistant United States Attorney, was on brief
__________
appellee.
____________________
October 6, 1994
____________________

____________________
*Of the District of New Hampshire, sitting by designation.

Per Curiam.
Per Curiam
__________

After

jury trial

defendant Leo Hamel was convicted

commit

bank

in

the

district

of violation of 18 U.S.C.

fraud

to

statements

for the purpose of influencing the actions of Dime Savi

Defendant

conspiracy

to

371

conspiracy

Bank, a federally insured bank.

and

cou

make

fa

He now appeals his conviction.

originally appealed

on

two grounds.

In

brief, he first argued that the government failed to prove as a mat

of law

that Hamel

influence a

knowingly made

a false

statement with

federally insured financial institution.

counsel correctly conceded during oral

intent

As defendan

argument, however, defendan

argument on this point is precluded by this Court's recent decision

United States
_____________

v. Brandon, 17 F.3d
_______

409, 426 (1st Cir.

1994) ("It

been established that the government does not have to show the alle
scheme was

directed

sufficient

to show

solely toward
______
that

a particular

defendant knowingly

institution; it

executed a

fraudul

scheme that exposed a federally insured bank to risk of loss.").

This

concession

argument on appeal, that

of law to
in

leaves

us

with

defendant's

there was insufficient evidence as

convict him of conspiracy under

371.

remain

a mat

We have stated t

assessing a sufficiency challenge, we examine the evidence "in

light
all

most flattering to the

reasonable

whether
beyond

inferences in

the proof

would have

its favor)
allowed a

so

process of draw

that we

rational jury

a reasonable doubt that the defendant

charged."
cert.
____

prosecution (in the

U.S. __,

113 S.

-22

Ct. 1005

to determ

was guilty of the cr

United States v. Ortiz, 966 F.2d 707, 711

_____________
_____

denied, __
______

may ascert

(1993).

(1st Cir. 199

There are

specific requirements of proof of a conspiratorial agreement; we

held

that the agreement may be express or tacit, and may be proved

direct or

circumstantial evidence.

United States
_____________

F.3d 1161, 1173 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied,

____ ______

v. Sep lveda,
_________

__ U.S. __, 114 S.

2714 (1994).
Applying
conspiracy
evidence to

these

conviction,

we

support a jury

standards
easily

for

review

find that

finding beyond

there

of

defendan

was

suffici

a reasonable doubt

of

agreement to defraud Dime Savings Bank and to present false stateme

to

Dime.

For

these reasons,

affirm his conviction.

Affirmed.
________

we

reject defendant's

challenge

-33