* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-31104

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CICERO PATTERSON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:06-CR-10026-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cicero Patterson appeals his jury convictions on three counts of wire fraud,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; one count of theft of public money, property, or

records, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641; and one count of making a false

statement with respect to the information required to be kept in the records of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 7, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-31104

2

a federal firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A). Patterson 

maintains the evidence was insufficient to prove his convictions. 

Patterson properly preserved his contention at trial by moving for

judgment of acquittal in two instances: atthe close ofthe Government’s case and

at the close of all the evidence. See United States v. Izydore, 167 F.3d 213, 219

(5th Cir. 1999). “In determining whether there was sufficient evidence to

sustain the convictions, [this court] must decide, viewing the evidence and the

inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict, whether a

rational juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

United States v. Mann, 493 F.3d 484, 492 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation

marks and brackets omitted). “The evidence need not exclude every reasonable

hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except

that of guilt, and the jury is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the

evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“Wire fraud is (1) the formation of a scheme or artifice to defraud, and (2)

use of the wires in furtherance of the scheme.” Id. at 493 (internal quotation

marks omitted). “Violation of the wire-fraud statute requires the specific intent

to defraud, i.e., a conscious knowing intent to defraud.” Id. (internal quotation

marks omitted). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,

a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Patterson

engaged in a scheme to defraud the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) by providing false answers on his assistance application and his

subsequent declaration of continuing need,that he used the wires to further this

scheme, and that he acted with the specific intent to defraud. See id.

To convict Patterson oftheft of public property, proof was required that(1)

“the property belonged to the government and had a value in excess of $1000”,

(2) Patterson “stole or converted the property for his own use or for the use of

another”, and (3) “he did so knowing the property was not his and with the

intent to deprive the owner of the use or benefit of the property”. United States
No. 07-31104

3

v. Dien Duc Huynh, 246 F.3d 734, 745 (5th Cir. 2001). Based on Patterson’s

conversion of FEMA funds, a rational juror could have found these elements

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

verdict, a rational juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that

Patterson knowingly made a false statement with respect to the information

required to be kept in the records of a federally-licensed firearms dealer . See

18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A).

AFFIRMED.