Sufficiency of the evidence for wire fraud &money laundering convictions; Whether the trial evidence impermissibly varied from the allegations in the indictment; Evidence related to defendant’s purchase of firearms & payments to a prostitute; FRE 403; Cross-examination about whether defendant falsely impersonated a police officer; FRE 608(b); Admission of character evidence; FRE 404(a)(2)(A) & 405(a); Sentencing; Procedural reasonableness; Two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice (USSG § 3C1.1); “Amount of loss” calculation under § 2B1.1; Two-level enhancement because the offense involved 10 or more victims (§ 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i))

The court affirmed defendant-Page’s convictions for wire-fraud and money-laundering where he used the money donated by members of an organization he founded for personal use. Page’s scheme involved using the Black Lives Matter cause to steal contributions made to his nonprofit tax-exempt entity called Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta (BLMGA). The tax-exempt status was revoked. Records showed that he used the donations for personal gain, including hiring a prostitute and buying firearms and a house. The district court imposed a below-the-guidelines sentence of 42 months on each count, to run concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of wire fraud and money laundering. But the court held as to the wire-fraud conviction that the “government presented overwhelming proof that Page carried out a scheme to defraud donors of more than $490,000 by misrepresenting that BLMGA would use those donations to combat racial and social injustice.” Further, he had direct contact on Facebook with donors to whom he averred that he was not using the funds for personal benefit, thus “willfully” defrauding them. A jury could find that his “disclaimer about BLMGA’s nonprofit status didn’t warn donors that he was going to spend the funds on personal expenses.” It also held that there was sufficient evidence to support his money-laundering convictions. The funds he used to purchase the “home and furniture were derived from an already completed offense, even if his scheme lasted longer.” And given his central role in the “scheme, the record certainly isn’t devoid of evidence that Page knew the funds were illegally derived.” It also rejected his claim that evidence at trial “impermissibly varied from the allegations in the indictment.” As to his assertion the evidence that he used the money to hire prostitutes and purchase firearms was “unduly prejudicial,” the court held that it “had substantial probative value” and noted that “painting a defendant in a bad light isn’t the same as evidence causing unfair prejudice.” As to the cross-examination “about whether he falsely impersonated a police officer[,]” his decision to testify allowed the government to ask about the incident. And the two errors the court found related to character evidence were not “sufficiently prejudicial to render Page’s trial fundamentally unfair because there was substantial evidence of his guilt.” The court also affirmed his sentence, upholding the imposition of enhancements for obstruction of justice and for an offense involving 10 or more victims, as well as the “amount of loss” calculation.