UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________

No. 22-1560 ______________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MOSHE PORAT, Appellant ______________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2-21-cr-00170-001) District Judge: Honorable Gerald J. Pappert ______________

Argued May 18, 2023 ______________

Before: KRAUSE, PHIPPS, and CHUNG, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: August 7, 2023) Mark B. Dubnoff [ARGUED] Nancy E. Potts Mary Teresa Soltis Office of the United States Attorney 615 Chestnut Street Suite 1250 Philadelphia, PA 19106

Counsel for Appellee Avery D. Medjuck Theodore D. Sampsell-Jones Alexandra A.E. Shapiro [ARGUED] Shapiro Arato Bach 1140 Avenue of the Americas 17th Floor New York, NY 10036

Counsel for Appellant Tai H. Park 1140 Avenue of the Americas 17th Floor New York, NY 10036

Counsel for Amicus Appellants Professor Stephen F. Smith and Notre Dame Law School Michael D. Pepson Americans for Prosperity Foundation 1310 N Courthouse Road Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201

Counsel for Amicus Appellant Americans for Prosperity Foundation

2 ______________

OPINION OF THE COURT ______________ CHUNG, Circuit Judge.

Moshe Porat, the former Dean of the Fox School of Business at Temple University (“Fox”), appeals his convictions for conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.

On appeal, Porat argues that the government did not plead or prove by sufficient evidence (1) that he sought to deprive his victims of money, (2) that he sought to personally obtain money, or (3) that the party he deceived was the same party he defrauded of money (i.e., “convergence”). With regard to the second issue, Porat also argues that the District Court erred in refusing to provide the jury with the instructions he sought. Because the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict him, and because the government need not prove either that the scheme was intended to personally benefit Porat or “convergence,” we will affirm. I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Porat was convicted for his scheme to raise Fox’s “rankings” in U.S. News and World Report (“U.S. News”), a publication that rates colleges and graduate schools, including

3 business schools. 1 The government offered evidence that, while some have criticized these rankings as poor measures of a school’s quality, many people rely on them to compare business schools. These include applicants, students, alumni, donors, employers, faculty, and the schools themselves.

Porat was Fox’s Dean from 1996 to 2018. During his time at Fox, he was “almost obsessed with rankings.” Suppl. App. (“SA”) 399. Sometime in the early 2000s, Porat created a committee that met regularly to consider the data that Fox would provide for use by U.S. News in formulating rankings. It also studied the rankings and strategized ways by which Fox could improve its rankings. Over time, Porat came to work most closely on rankings with two Fox employees, Isaac Gottlieb and Marjorie O’Neill. Porat eventually eliminated the committee and consolidated responsibility for Fox’s survey submissions in O’Neill, who reported directly to him. After that, Porat continued to confer with both Gottlieb and O’Neill on rankings strategy.

At some point, Porat’s efforts to raise Fox’s rankings crossed the line from strategy to falsification. Evidence at trial showed that Fox may have submitted false data to rankings publications as ea