Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50592/USCOURTS-ca5-13-50592-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Nicholas Brooks
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-50592

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROBERT NICHOLAS BROOKS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC Nos. 5:10-CR-536-1 and 5:12-CR-666-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A jury convicted Robert Brooks of one count of conspiracy to commit mail 

fraud and seven counts of mail fraud in connection with a scheme to defraud 

mortgage lenders. The jury also convicted Brooks of two counts of tax fraud.

Brooks appeals from his convictions and sentences, arguing: (1) that the 

evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on each count; (2) that the 

district court improperly admitted unauthenticated documents and testimony 

in violation of his Sixth Amendment confrontation right; and (3) that the 

* 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

January 15, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-50592 Document: 00512904959 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2015
No. 13-50592

district court misapplied a sentencing enhancement for “sophisticated means” 

under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). The government concedes the evidence is 

insufficient to support the jury’s verdict on one of the counts of mail fraud—

specifically, Count Three as charged in the grand jury’s indictment of Brooks 

dated June 16, 2010.1 We agree. Having independently reviewed the record

evidence, we find it sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on all remaining 

counts.2 Finding Brooks’ other arguments to be without merit, we vacate 

Brooks’ conviction and sentence as to Count Three and affirm Brooks’ other 

convictions and sentences. 

VACATED in part and AFFIRMED in part.

1 R. at 54-55. 2 United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) 

(“[R]eviewing courts must affirm a conviction if, after viewing the evidence and all reasonable 

inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have 

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” (citing Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979))).

2

 

 Case: 13-50592 Document: 00512904959 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2015