United States v. Fairbanks

── United States v. Fairbanks ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 15, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-4047 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 15, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-4047 (D.C. No. 1:19-CR-00114-JNP-1) THOMAS FAIRBANKS, (D. Utah) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Defendant-Appellant Thomas Fairbanks was charged with two counts of securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a) and 77x, with each count relating to a separate victim. On the eve of trial, Mr. Fairbanks moved to sever the two counts under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 14, arguing that joinder was prejudicial. The district court denied his motion, and Mr. Fairbanks defended against both counts at a single trial. At the close of the evidence, Mr. Fairbanks moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 for a judgment of acquittal on both counts. The district court * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.  Appellate Case: 24-4047 Document: 64-1 Date Filed: 04/15/2026 Page: 2 reserved its ruling on Mr. Fairbanks’s Rule 29 motion until after the jury had reached its verdicts. After the jury found Mr. Fairbanks guilty on both counts, the district court denied Mr. Fairbanks’s Rule 29 motion. Mr. Fairbanks now appeals, arguing that (1) the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to sever, and (2) the district court erred in denying his Rule 29 motion because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction on Count 2. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I A 1 This case arises from an investment vehicle called “SupplyLine,” which Mr. Fairbanks founded and operated. Mr. Fairbanks marketed SupplyLine as a “bucket” of pooled funds, to which investors could contribute, and from which they could draw funds, to improve and expand their businesses. Mr. Fairbanks promoted SupplyLine as an investment opportunity to small business owners in and around Logan, Utah through seminars, promotional flyers, a website, and one-on-one conversations. Mr. Fairbanks owned several other small businesses in the Logan area, including several print shops, and he emphasized that SupplyLine was a way for small business owners to engage in “necessary collaborations,” “entrepreneurial business ventures,” “collaborative marketing,” and “education and training”—all “while returning economic and social benefits back to the community.” Suppl. R., Vol. III, at 44 (Gov’t Ex. 19). Mr. Fairbanks guaranteed 2  Appellate Case: 24-4047 Docume