Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41004/USCOURTS-ca5-14-41004-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronnie Derryl Lewis
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-41004

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RONNIE DERRYL LEWIS, also known as Byron Keith Lewis, also known as 

Stevie Lewis, also known as Curtis Williams,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-98-1

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronnie Derryl Lewis was convicted following a jury trial of conspiracy to 

commit mail fraud, aiding and abetting aggravated identity theft, and three 

counts of mail fraud. He contends that there was a material variance between 

the indictment, which alleged a single conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and 

the proof at trial, which he maintains showed multiple smaller conspiracies. 

Lewis must establish that there was a variance between the indictment and 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 7, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 14-41004 Document: 00513106385 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/07/2015
No. 14-41004

2

the proof at trial and that the variance affected his substantial rights. United 

States v. Morris, 46 F.3d 410, 414 (5th Cir. 1995).

We need not resolve whether a material variance existed because Lewis 

cannot show that any variance affected his substantial rights. See id.; United 

States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1127-29 (5th Cir. 1997). The evidence 

supports, and Lewis does not dispute, that there was sufficient evidence that 

he was involved in at least one conspiracy to commit mail fraud. See United 

States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 770-71 (5th Cir. 2007). Any risk of prejudice 

was minimized by the district court’s jury charge, see Mitchell, 484 F.3d at 771; 

United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 762 (5th Cir. 1994), and, moreover, the 

indictment gave Lewis a sufficient opportunity to prepare a defense, see United 

States Lokey, 945 F.2d 825, 834 (5th Cir. 1991). The evidence reflected, and 

Lewis conceded, that he was a central figure in all of the potential conspiracies

and, therefore, there is no concern that the jury transferred guilt to him. See 

Grisette v. United States, 313 F.2d 187, 189-90 (5th Cir. 1963). Lewis’s guilt 

was established by evidence, including his own admissions, that was not likely 

to confuse the jury and which was precise in proving his role in the operative

events. See Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d at 1129. Lewis offers only a conclusory 

argument under the general principles of joinder and severance and has failed 

to show reversible error. See Mitchell, 484 F.3d at 771; Pena-Rodriguez, 110 

F.3d at 1128.

Lewis also has moved for the substitution of appointed counsel or, in the 

alternative, for leave to proceed pro se. His motion was untimely filed after his

counsel and the Government filed their briefs on the merits. See United States 

v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). Finally, Lewis’s motion for 

leave to file a supplemental brief is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.

Case: 14-41004 Document: 00513106385 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/07/2015