IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10345

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

PHILLIP MONROE BALLARD, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-67

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Phillip Monroe Ballard appeals the jury’s verdict convicting him of

solicitation to commit the murder of federal judge John McBryde. We reject 

Ballard’s arguments for the following reasons and AFFIRM.

Ballard does not adequately explain his arguments or provide supporting 

authority. Arguments not adequately briefed are waived. See U.S. v. 

* 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

April 9, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10345 Document: 00512999511 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-10345

Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 446 (5th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, for the reasons set 

forth below, Ballard’s claims fail. 

First, Ballard asserts that the evidence did not establish his intent to 

solicit the murder of Judge McBryde. To prove their case, the Government 

must show that the defendant intended that another person commit a crime of 

violence against another. 18 U.S.C. § 373(a). This court in Vargas-Ocampo

reiterates the Supreme Court standard that a conviction must be affirmed “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.” United States v. 

Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 300 (5th Cir. 2014 (en banc), cert. denied, 135 

S. Ct. 170 (2014) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 313-14, 99 S. Ct. 

2781-2786 (1979)). To show Ballard’s intent, the Government presented 

evidence including, but not limited to: (1) informant testimony that Ballard 

asked if he knew someone to kill Judge McBryde; (2) audio/visual recordings 

reflecting Ballard discussing with the informant the preferred manner for 

killing the judge and Ballard calling the undercover FBI agent posing as a 

hitman; as well as (3) email sent from Ballard’s account asking his sister to

send money to the address provided by the undercover agent. Since Ballard 

presented no sufficient countervailing evidence, it was plausible for a rational 

jury to find him guilty on the evidence presented. 

Next, Ballard contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not

excluding Government Exhibits 2-5, 7, 7A and 8 as highly prejudicial. First, 

a court abuses its discretion when its decision is based “on an erroneous view 

of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” See United States 

v. Ebron, 683 F.3d 105, 125 (5th Cir. 2012). As to excluding evidence, in United 

2

 Case: 14-10345 Document: 00512999511 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2015
No. 14-10345

States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (5th Cir. 1993), this court stated that 

“[r]elevant evidence is inherently prejudicial; but it is only unfair prejudice, 

substantially outweighing probative value, which permits exclusion of relevant 

matter under Rule 403.” Furthermore, In Perez-Solis, we explained that unfair 

prejudice speaks to the ability of relevant evidence to “lure the factfinder into 

declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged.”

United States v. Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453, 464-65 (5th Cir. 2013). Ballard fails 

to prove that the evidence at issue was offered to show anything other than his 

intent to solicit the murder of Judge McBryde, and thus fails to prove the trial 

court erroneously admitted the evidence.

Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Ballard’s 

hearsay objection to Government Exhibit 4. Rule 801 defines hearsay as a 

statement the declarant did not make while testifying at the trial that is

offered into evidence by a party “to prove the truth of the matter asserted in 

the statement.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The Government accurately maintains 

that Exhibit 4, the undercover FBI agent’s handwritten letter agreeing to 

perform the hit, was not offered to show that the agent intended to carry out 

the hit. But it was instead offered to show Ballard’s intent to hire a hitman as 

evidenced by his actions after receiving the letter (e-mailing his sister asking 

her to send money to the address provided in the letter, and calling the phone 

number provided in the letter). Consequently, Exhibit 4 is not hearsay and 

was not admitted in error.

Given the foregoing, a rational jury could have found sufficient evidence 

to convict Ballard of Solicitation to Commit Murder, and Ballard does not prove

that the district court abused its discretion. 

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-10345 Document: 00512999511 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/09/2015