Case ID: f-appx_544/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kenneth A. GORDON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-30186
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 4, 2013.
    Josette Louise Cassiere, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Joseph Walter Greenwald, Jr., Esq., Malone Law Firm, L.L.C., Shreveport, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Kenneth A. Gordon, Jr., appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud stemming from his role in a scheme to defraud an insurance company by staging a theft of heavy equipment and submitting a false claim for the loss. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conviction, noting his testimony that he did not commit the offenses and arguing that the Government’s chief witness, co-conspirator Don Newton, was not credible. Because he failed to renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence, we review for a manifest miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Rodriguez-Martinez, 480 F.3d 303, 307 (5th Cir.2007).

The verdict shows that the jury believed Newton’s testimony over Gordon’s. This credibility finding “was within the sole province of the jury as the fact finder,” and we “will not second guess ... its choice of which witness[ ] to believe.” United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1260 (5th Cir.1994). Contrary to Gordon’s assertion, the evidence that he sold a piece of the equipment after filing the insurance claim was admissible, as it indicated his knowledge of the offenses, his plan, and his motive. See Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). We find no manifest miscarriage of justice in his conviction. See Rodriguez-Martinez, 480 F.3d at 307.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.