That 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision is one that Kent Hovind took up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Cert was denied. See:Message 1 of 6 , Jan 31View SourceThat 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision is one that Kent Hovind took up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Cert was denied.
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the Maury_and_Baty
File : Hovind 11th Circuit Appeal.pdf
Uploaded by : Robert Baty
Description : 11th Circuit Appeals Court Unpublished Hovind Opinion
You can access this file at the URL:
The file is the complete, UNpublished decision by the 11th Circuit Court of
Appeals and deals with issues that Kent has been most vocal about in his
personal correspondence with me; as if he didn't know that his arguments and
claims were false and/or otherwise without merit.
Following are excerpts:
(305 Fed. Appx. 615)
Court ruling on Kent Hovind's Appeal,
D. C. Docket No. 06-00083-CR-3-MCR
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Opinion of the Court
Kent Hovind appeals his convictions and sentences for
structuring transactions to avoid financial reporting laws
Kent and Jo challenge the sufficiency of their indictments
and the evidence.
Between 1999 and 2003, the Hovinds withdrew from AmSouth Bank
over one and a half million dollars in increments less than
$10,000 to avoid federal filing requirements.
The Hovinds were charged in the next 45 counts for structuring cash withdrawals
to avoid financial reporting requirements.
Approximately two months after the court-imposed filing deadline, the Hovinds
moved to dismiss their indictments.
The district court denied the motions as untimely and without merit.
After the government rested its case at trial, the Hovinds moved for an
acquittal on each count of the indictment.
Defense counsel argued that the government was required to prove for each count
of structuring that the transaction equaled or exceeded $10,000 and, because the
evidence established that each transaction was less than that threshold, the
Hovinds were entitled to dismissal of those counts.
The government responded that it had a "fundamental disagreement" with the
Hovinds' interpretation of the structuring statutes and argued that structuring
necessarily requires a transaction under $10,000.
The district court "agree[d] with the government" that the Hovinds'
interpretation of structuring was contrary to the statutes and denied the
The court later referred to its decision on the motion and instructed defense
counsel that they would "not be permitted" to argue their interpretation of the
After discussion of the issue, defense counsel explained that they intended to
argue that the government did not prove that the Hovinds structured each
transaction to evade reporting requirements.
The Hovinds were found guilty of all charges.
We review de novo the sufficiency of an indictment.
Kent and Jo Hovind raise multiple issues for our consideration.
Their arguments fail.
We address each argument in turn.
A. The Hovinds Indictments Were Sufficient.
It is a well-established principle that "`[t]he sufficiency of a criminal
indictment is determined from its face.'"
"For an indictment to be valid, it must `contain the elements of
the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprise the defendant of
what he must be prepared to meet.'"
When the indictment tracks the language of the statute, "`it must be accompanied
with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused
of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is
The indictment sufficiently alleged Kent's tax crimes.
The indictment also sufficiently alleged the Hovinds' structuring crimes.
The Hovinds argue that each of the structuring counts fails to
state an offense because each count fails to allege that the
Hovinds structured an amount that exceeded $10,000 and, without
this allegation, the indictments were defective.
The Hovinds contend that the language used in the financial
reporting statute did not suggest that structuring could involve
a cash transaction of less than $10,000.
These arguments ignore the plain language of the statute and our interpretation
A person is prohibited from "structur[ing] . . . any transaction" to "evad[e]
the reporting requirements[,]".
Those reporting requirements are activated upon the "payment, receipt, or
transfer of United States coins or currency[,]"
"of more than $10,000."
In other words, section 5324(a)(3) forbids a person from transacting in amounts
less than $10,000 to avoid detection by and reporting of the transactions by a
That interpretation is also consistent with the intent of Congress for the
structuring provision to "operate `without regard for whether an individual
transaction is, itself, reportable . . . .'"
Because a cash transaction does not have to equal or exceed $10,000 to
constitute a structuring offense, the district court did not err by denying the
Hovinds' motion to dismiss.
The Hovinds Structured Transactions To Avoid Reporting Requirements.
The government also proved that the Hovinds structured their cash withdrawals to
avoid federal reporting requirements.
Although the Hovinds challenge the validity of their convictions on the ground
that the statute does not penalize transactions below $10,000, this
interpretation does not comport with the language of the statute.
Congress enacted Section 5324(a)(3) to penalize "any transaction" structured to
"avoid triggering [a] bank's duty to file a [Currency Transaction Report] in the
By its plain language, the statute prohibits transactions of less than $10,000
that are intended to evade reporting requirements.
That reading comports with the regulations that define structuring to penalize
cash transactions designed "in any manner, . . . including transactions . . .
below $10,000 . . . for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements . . .
Evidence established that Kent and Jo Hovind structured cash transactions with
knowledge of, and the intent to avoid, reporting of those transactions by
A former employee of Evangelism Enterprises, Brian Popp, testified that Kent
knew of and complained about the bank reporting requirements and that Jo, often
at Kent's direction, regularly obtained cash to pay employees of the
Other employees and associates of Kent testified that the Hovinds openly
disputed the validity of the tax laws.
Various documents established that Jo withdrew cash in increments of $9500 and
$9600 from AmSouth Bank as often as four or five times a month, for a total of
45 transactions between July 2001 and August 2002.
Viewing this evidence in a light favorable to the prosecution, the jury was
entitled to find that Kent and Jo knew of the reporting requirements and
structured cash transactions in amounts less than $10,000 to prevent AmSouth
Bank from reporting the transactions.
The Hovinds were not prejudiced by the change to the jury instruction. The
district court did not substantially modify the instruction on structuring.
The convictions and sentences of the Hovinds are AFFIRMED.