IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30509

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SHELLEY R. CALLAHAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:13-CR-119-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

A single-count indictment charged Shelley R. Callahan with making a 

false statement under penalty of perjury in a bankruptcy proceeding in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152(3). The indictment alleged that Callahan claimed 

to have made no gifts or payments in the year preceding her bankruptcy, when 

in fact she made gifts and payments to family members from the proceeds of a 

personal injury settlement. A jury convicted Callahan. Her sentence included 

* 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 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30509 Document: 00512894819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-30509

an order that she pay restitution of $21,990.00, which reflected the amount of 

secured and unsecured debt she reported in her bankruptcy. Callahan appeals 

her conviction and sentence. She contends that the evidence was insufficient 

to support her conviction. She also argues that the district court erroneously 

calculated the amount of restitution owed because, she claims, some of her 

debts have been satisfied.

Ordinarily, we review sufficiency of the evidence by considering 

“whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 768 (5th Cir. 2007). 

However, although Callahan moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of 

the Government’s case, she failed to renew her motion at the close of all 

evidence. Therefore, we review the claim for plain error. See United States v. 

Salazar, 542 F.3d 139, 142 (5th Cir. 2008). Under plain error review, Callahan 

must show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects substantial 

rights. United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 329-332 (5th Cir. 2012) (en 

banc). If these three prongs are met, we have the discretion to correct the error 

only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings. Id. at 329 (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted). Under this test, there must be a manifest miscarriage of justice, 

meaning that the record must be devoid of evidence of guilt or the evidence 

must be so tenuous as to make the verdict shocking. Id. at 330-31; see also 

United States v. Davis, 690 F.3d 330, 336-37 (5th Cir. 2012).

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that there was sufficient 

evidence of guilt. Determining “[t]he weight and credibility of the evidence are 

the sole province of the jury.” United States v. Parker, 505 F.3d 323, 331 (5th 

Cir. 2007). In explaining how she spent the proceeds of her personal injury 

settlement, the evidence reflects that Callahan offered contradictory innocent 

2

 Case: 14-30509 Document: 00512894819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-30509

explanations and repeatedly omitted requested information. Thus, “a rational 

jury could have inferred the existence of an intentional plan to defraud from 

the bare facts of [Callahan’s] systematic concealment and false statements.” 

See United States v. Cluck, 143 F.3d 174, 180 (5th Cir. 1998). The jury was 

free to believe or disbelieve her innocent explanations. After having heard 

Callahan’s explanations, the jury returned a conviction. This court does “not 

weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses.” United States v. 

Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d 600, 605 (5th Cir. 2008). The verdict is supported 

by ample evidence; there was no manifest miscarriage of justice. See Delgado, 

672 F.3d at 330-31.

Callahan also argues that the restitution award should be reduced. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8) states that the appellant’s brief 

“must contain (A) appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with 

citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant 

relies.” We are not required to search the record to find a legal basis for an 

issue. United States v. Brace, 145 F.3d 247, 255 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 

Further, because the brief was prepared by counsel, Callahan is not entitled to 

have it liberally construed. See Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th 

Cir. 1986). Thus, inadequately briefed issues are deemed waived. United 

States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010).

We conclude that Callahan’s failure to brief the restitution issue with 

any particularity results in an abandonment of the issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 

985 F.3d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). With respect to the restitution issue, her 

brief fails to substantially comply with the briefing requirements of 

Rule 28(a)(8). In her opening brief, she cites to no legal authorities or statutes 

which support her contention that the district court erroneously calculated the 

amount of restitution owed. She fails to set forth the applicable standard of 

3

 Case: 14-30509 Document: 00512894819 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-30509

review. To the extent that she makes certain factual assertions, she fails to 

explain why, with reference to applicable law, she is entitled to relief. Thus, 

she has abandoned her restitution claim. See Scroggins, 599 F.3d at 446; 

Yohey, 985 F.3d at 224-25.

AFFIRMED.

4

 Case: 14-30509 Document: 00512894819 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/08/2015