P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60011 Su m m ar y Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. FRANSE NE BERRY D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 3: 06- C R

- 86- 4

B e fo r e G A R Z A , D e M O S S , a n dC L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * F ra n sen e B errya p p ea l s h er j u ryco n victi on for on e cou n t of co n sp i ra cyto
c o m m it m a il fr a u dinv io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 a n ds ixc o u n ts o f m a il fr a u din
v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1
. S h e ra is e s fo u ris s u e s o n a p p e a l. F ir s t, B e r r yco n te n d s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e dw h e n it im p r o p e r ly i n st ructed t h e j u ry on the obj ectof t h e cha rged consp i racy. A l t h ou gh t h e di st ri ct
c o ur tc o r r e c t e d it s e lf

a n do r de r e d t he j ur y t o di s r e ga r d t he e r r o ne o us i ns t r uc t i o n, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60011

2 B erry argues t h at th e process of cha n gi n g t h e i n st ructi on m i sl ed an d confused t h e j ur y. Bec aus e Ber r y di d no to bj e c tt o t he j ur y i ns t r uc t i o ns i n t he di st ri ct
c o u r t, r e v ie w is fo rp la in e r r o r . Se eUni t e d St at e s v . Hi c km an , 331 F. 3d 439, 443 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ); F ED . R. C RIM . P
. 3 0 (d). T h e ju ry in str u ct i on s as a w h ol e di d n otm i sl eadt h e j u ry an d d i d n ot
c r e a te as u b s ta n tia l a n din e r a d ic a b le d o u b t a s to w h e th e r th e ju r yw a s p r o p e r ly g u id e d i n i t s d e lib e r a tio n s . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Klein , 54 3 F
. 3 d20 6 , 21 0 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. The di s t r i c tc o ur tc o r r e c t l y i ns t r uc t e d t he j ur y t hatt he o bj e c to f t he conspir acy w as t o com m i tm ai lf rau d. T h e di st ri ctcourtal so i n st ructed t h e j u ry o n t h e e s s e n tia l e le m e n ts o f th e s u b s ta n tiv e o ffe n s e o f m a il fr a u d
. T h e ju r yd id
n ot qu estion the distri ct cou rt’ s i n stru cti on s p ri or to r e tu rn i n g it s ve rd i ct. Fur t he r , t he e vi de nc e w as s uf f i c i e nt t o e s t ab l i s h t hat Ber r y kne w t he us e o f t he
m a ils w o u ld fo llo w in th e o r d in a r y c o u r s e o f b u s in e s s o rth a t itw a s re a s o n a b ly f oreseeabl e t h at th e m ai l s w ou l d be u sed t o execute t h e f rau du l en tsc h em e. T h e r e fo r e , B e r r yh a s n o t s h o w n e r r o r . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. W ells , 262 F. 3d 455, 4 6 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). Ber r y al s o c o nt e nds t hatth ed i s t r i c tc o ur ta bus e d it s di s c r e t i o n i n a l l o w i ng in a d m is s ib le h e a r s a yte s t im o n y . S p e c if ic a ll y , s h e a r g u e s t h a tP a t r ic kM c G e e ’s t es t i m ony t hats he w as i ncr ea singthe s quaref oo t age of

t he hous es w as i n ad m i ssibl e hea rsay un der F ED . R. E VID . 801(c ) and t h a t n one of t he hear sa y excepti on s app li ed. B ecau se B erry di d not obj ect t o t h i s t est i m on y i n t h e di st ri ct
cou rt, rev i ew i s f

or p l a i n err o r . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Ca n tu , 167 F. 3d 198, 204 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Eve n if t he di s t r i c tc o ur te r r e d i n a l l o w i ng i nad m i s s ibl e he ar s ayt e s t i m o ny an d the errorw as cl ear or obvious, B erry has not show n t h at th e err or af fect ed hers ubst ant i alr i ght s. App r ai sa lex per tR obe r tPrayt ort es t i f i ed t hat B er r y w as f rau du l en t l y i n f

l ati n g t h e val u e of

t h e h om es by m odi f

yi n g t h e squa re f

oot age of t he hom es and t hei rc om par abl e li st i ngs. Thu s, t he under l yi ng evi denc e w as p r o p e r lyp r e s e n te dto th e ju r y , a n dB e r r yh a s n o t s h o w n p la in e r r o r . Se ei d.N o. 08- 60011

3 B e r r ya ls o co n te n d s th a t t h e e v id e n c e a t tr ia l w a s in s u ffic ie n t t o s u s ta in herc onvi c t i on f

orc ons pi r acy to c om m i tm ai lf r aud. She do es notdi sput e that sh e a n doth ers co n sp i red to p r o vid e false i n form a ti on to l en d ers inord er to
o bt ai n f r aud ul e n t l y i nf

l at e d m o r t ga ge l o ans . Rat he r , Ber r y ar gue s t hatt he G o ve r nm e ntfail e d t o pr o vet hats he us e d, c o ns pir e d, o ri nt en de d t o us e t he
m ai l s t o d ef

rau d or that sh e k n ew the m ai l s w ou l d be u sed t o def rau d. B ecau se B erry m ovedfor a j u dg m en tof acqu i t t alat t h e cl ose of t h e G overnm en t ’ s c ase an d renew ed the m ot i on at t h e cl ose of a l lof t h e evi den ce, she properl y preserved h e rs u ffic ie n c ycla im fo ra p p e lla te re v ie w . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. F erguson , 211 F .3d 8 7 8 , 8 8 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ). To pr o veam ailf

r audc o ns pir ac y, t he G ove r nm e ntm us tpr o ve b e yo nd a
rea son a b l e d ou b t: “(1) a n a gr ee m en t b etw ee n [th e d efen d a n t] an doth ers (2) t o c o m m i tt he c r i m e o f m ailf r aud , a nd ( 3) a n o ve r ta c tc o m m i t t e d by on e of t he
con sp i ra tors i n f

u rth era n ce of tha t ag ree m en t. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. S n eed , 63 F. 3d 38 1, 3 85 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 95 )
. The G o ve r nm e nt m us t al s o pr o ve t hatt he de fe nda nt
a c te d w ith in te n t to d e fr a u d
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. G arza , 42 9 F
. 3 d16 5 , 16 8 -69 ( 5 th Ci r . 2 00 5)
. To pr o vem ailf r aud , t he G o ve r nm en tm us tpr o ve b e yo nd a
r e a s o n a b le d o u b t: “(1 ) as c h e m e to d e fr a u d(2 ) w h ic h in v o lv e s au s e o f th e m a ils (3) for t h e p u rp ose of ex ecu ti n g th e sch em e.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. I ngles , 445 F. 3d 83 0, 8 35 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 6) (i nt e r nalquo t at i o n m ar ks a nd c i t at i o ns o m i t t e d)
. “The gover n m e n tneed not prove t h at th e [ defenda n t] usedt h e m ai l s [h erself ] or a ctu a l l y in ten d edtha t th e m a i l b e u sed
. ” Uni t e d St at e s v . Mc Cle l land , 868 F. 2d 70 4, 7 07 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 9)
. “The m ail f r aud s t at ut e r e quir e s o nl y t hatt he m ail i ng c a u s e db yt h e d e fe n d a n t’s a c tio n s b e in c id e n t t o a n e s s e n tia l p a r t o f th e s c h e m e .” Ingle s , 4 4 5 F .3 da t 8 3 5 (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d). A def endantc ause s t he m ai l s t o b e us ed if s he “ doe s an ac tw i t h know l edge t hat t h e use of

the m ai l s w i l lf

ol l ow i n t h e ordi n ary course of bu si n ess, or w h ere [ she]
ca n rea son a b l y fores ee tha t us e of the m a i l s w i l lresu l t. ” Mc Cle l land , 868 F. 2d at707.N o. 08- 60011

4 Vi e w i n g t h e ev i de nc e i n t he l i ghtm o s tfav o r ab l e t o t he v e r di c t , t he
e v id e n c e w a s s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h th a t B e r r y k n e w th e u s e o f th e m a ils w o u ld fo llo w inth e o r d in a r yco u r s e o f b u s in e s s o rth a titw a s re a s o n a b lyfo r e s e e a b le t h at th e m ai l s w ou l d be u sed t o execute the f rau du l en tsch em e. A t t orney R obert L in g le te s tifie dth a t a t th e c o n c lu s io n o f r e a l e s ta te c lo s in g s , le n d e r s g e n e r a lly
r e quir e t hatt he c l o s i n g docu m e nt s b e de l ive r e d t o t he m e i t he rb y hand , if t he l ende ri s l o c a l , o rb ym a i l
. I n t he i ns t a ntc a s e , t he l e nd e r s d i dn o thave
u n d e r w r i t e r s inM is s is s ip p i. T h u s , ina c c o r d a n c e w ith th e le n d e r s ’s p e c ific i n st ructi on s, t h e cl osi n g docu m en t s w ere m ai l ed to th e m vi a F ederalE xp ress . C o- c ons pi r at or s M c G ee , M arvi n D aw so n, and Th om as G r i f f i n t es t i fi ed t hat B erry’ s app rai sal s w ere an essenti alpart of t h e f rau du l en tsch e m e becau se w i t h ou tthe ap prai sal s the l en ders w ou l d n oth ave ap provedthe i n f l ated l oan s. G rif f i n a l so test i f

i ed that t h e app rai sal s w ere partof t h e ori gi n all oan pack ages he w oul d s end t o t he l ender s. Jam es Fer r ol , a r epr es ent at ive of H om ec om i ngs F i n a n ci a lN etw ork , In c. , testifi ed tha t t h e loan p a ck a ge s w ere u su a l l y se n t t o t h em by overn i gh tm ai lor t h e regu la r p o sta lservi ce. A s a li censed a pp rai ser, B erry knew or shou l d h ave kn ow n t h at her app rai sal s w ere an i n t egralpart of t he l o an pr o c e s s a nd thatt he m ail s w o ul d be use d i n aut ho r i z i ng t he l o ans a nd
c o m pl e t i ng t he c l o s i ngs in t he o r di nar y c o ur s e o f b us i ne s s . Ac c o r di ngly, t he
ev i d en ce a t t ri a lw a s su ff i ci en t t o s u s ta in B erry ’ s con victi on f or co n sp i ra cyto
c o m m it m a il fr a u d
. Se eMc Cle l land , 868 F. 2d at707. F i n a l l y, B errycon ten d s th a t t ri a lcou n sel w a s in effective in faili n g to i n vest i gate and present th e t est i m on y of i m portant fact w i t n esses . T h e rec ord i s not suf

f i c i ent l y deve l ope d t o per m i t di r ec t r evi ew of B er r y’ s i n effec t ive a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l cla im s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Kizze e , 150 F. 3d 497, 502- 03 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 98 )
. Ther e f o r e , t hi s c o ur tde c l i ne s t o c o ns i de rt he s e c l ai m s w i t ho ut p r eju d ic e to B e r r y ’ s rig h t t o r a is e t h e m in a2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n . Se ei d. at 5 0 3
. AF F I RMED.