Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-60834/USCOURTS-ca5-13-60834-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aubrey Brent Sturdivant
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-60834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

AUBREY BRENT STURDIVANT, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:10-CR-20-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Aubrey Brent Sturdivant was tried by a jury and convicted of conspiring 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 to knowingly make materially false statements 

on Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) documents and to 

knowingly convert FEMA funds in excess of $1,000. Sturdivant was sentenced 

by the district court to forty-one months of imprisonment for his conspiracy 

conviction. The district court also found Sturdivant guilty of contempt for 

* 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

February 25, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 13-60834 Document: 00512948056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2015
No. 13-60834

conversing with a government witness in violation of a court order. The district 

court accordingly sentenced Sturdivant to an additional three-month sentence 

to run consecutively to his conspiracy sentence. The court further imposed a 

two-year term of supervised release, ordered Sturdivant to pay a $10,000 fine, 

and ordered that Sturdivant pay a $100 special assessment fee. 

On appeal, Sturdivant raises six issues concerning the district court’s 

denial of his motion for a new trial, the admission of certain evidence and 

testimony at his trial, and his contempt conviction. We have thoroughly 

reviewed the briefs in this case, the pertinent parts of the record, the applicable 

law, and the arguments of counsel. We conclude for essentially the same 

reasons outlined in the district court’s order that Sturdivant was not entitled 

to a new trial. We have further determined that the district court did not 

plainly err in not granting Sturdivant an acquittal for his conspiracy charge. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and 

testimony Sturdivant challenges on appeal. And Sturdivant’s contempt 

conviction was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, Sturdivant’s 

convictions are AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 13-60834 Document: 00512948056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2015