United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10144

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Donna H. Woods, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:17-CR-665-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Donna H. Woods appeals her conviction and sentence for conspiracy 

to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1349, 

and three counts of wire fraud, in violation of § 1343. The district court 

sentenced Woods to a total of eighty-seven months of imprisonment and two 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 11, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10144 Document: 00515775380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 20-10144

2

years of supervised release, granted the Government’s motion for a $50,000 

forfeiture money judgment against Woods, and further ordered Woods to pay 

restitution in the amount of $337,951.06 and a $25,000 fine. On appeal, 

Woods contends that the evidence was not sufficient to show a kickback in

support of the conspiracy offense, that the evidence was not sufficient to 

show an interstate commerce nexus on the substantive wire fraud offenses, 

that the evidence did not support the $50,000 forfeiture money judgment, 

and that the district court erred by applying a two-level enhancement for her 

role in the offense. We AFFIRM.

In reviewing a preserved challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, 

this court must determine whether “after viewing the evidence and all 

reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the [Government], any

rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 

301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (emphasis in original) (citing Jackson v. 

Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). The jury’s conclusion that Woods 

benefitted from the scheme fraudulently to obtain E-Rate funds by virtue of 

a kickback was a rational construction of the evidence and the reasonable 

inferences drawn therefrom. Id. at 301–02. Viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the verdict, the jury could have reasonably found that 

Woods and Donatus I. Anyanwu entered into an agreement fraudulently to 

obtain federal E-Rate funds for the benefit of the both of them, that Woods 

knew about the existence of the agreement, and that she willingly took steps 

to further the conspiracy. See Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319; United States v. 

Simpson, 741 F.3d 539, 547–48 (5th Cir. 2014). Therefore, the evidence is 

sufficient on the conspiracy count. Simpson, 741 F.3d at 547-48.

Woods’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

interstate commerce nexus similarly fails. Irrespective of which standard of 

Case: 20-10144 Document: 00515775380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 20-10144

3

review applies,1 the evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that the emails 

listed in each of the wire fraud counts crossed state lines. See United States 

v. Hoffman, 901 F.3d 523, 547 (5th Cir. 2018). Consequently, there was 

sufficient proof to establish an interstate commerce nexus on each of the 

substantive wire fraud charges. See id.; Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d at 301.

Woods’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

$50,000 money judgment also fails. This court reviews “the district court’s 

findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard of review, and the 

question of whether those facts constitute legally proper forfeiture de novo.” 

United States v. Reed, 908 F.3d 102, 125 (5th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). “A factual finding is not clearly erroneous if it 

is plausible in light of the record read as a whole.” United States v. Ainabe, 

938 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation 

omitted), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 259 (2020). The evidence establishes that 

Woods was part of a scheme to defraud the Government and that she 

benefitted from that scheme by receiving a kickback from Anyanwu. The 

district court’s finding that the kickback totaled $50,000 is plausible in the 

light of the record as a whole. See id. Consequently, the district court did not 

err by ordering the $50,000 forfeiture money judgment. See Reed, 908 F.3d 

at 125.

Finally, we review the district court’s interpretation and application 

of the sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error.

United States v. Zuniga, 720 F.3d 587, 590 (5th Cir. 2013). A defendant’s 

1 The parties dispute the standard of review for this issue. Woods asserts that her 

general challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence preserved her challenge to the 

sufficiency of the interstate commerce nexus. The Government contends that Woods 

waived a sufficiency challenge on this ground due to her specific challenge to the sufficiency 

of the evidence for the existence of a scheme to defraud, but not the interstate commerce 

nexus.

Case: 20-10144 Document: 00515775380 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/11/2021
No. 20-10144

4

base offense level may be increased by two levels if the defendant was an 

organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in any criminal activity involving 

less than five participants. See U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual

§ 3B1.1(b). The enhancement may also apply “in the case of a defendant who 

did not organize, lead, manage, or supervise another participant, but who 

nevertheless exercised management responsibility over the property, assets, 

or activities of criminal organization.” § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2. The district court’s 

factual finding is plausible in the light of the record as a whole and does not 

give rise to a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed. 

See Zuniga, 720 F.3d at 590. Consequently, the district court did not abuse 

its discretion by overruling Woods’s objection to the two-level enhancement. 

See id.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10144 Document: 00515775380 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/11/2021