Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aubrey Brent STURDIVANT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-25
Citations: 594 F. App'x 265
Docket Number: No. 13-60834
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aubrey Brent STURDIVANT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 265–265

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Aubrey Brent STURDIVANT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-60834.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 25, 2015.
Gaines H. Cleveland, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Gulfport, MS, Carla J. Clark, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Jerry Lynn Rushing, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Julie Ann Epps, Esq., Canton, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Aubrey Brent Sturdivant was tried by a jury and convicted of conspiring in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 to knowingly make materially false statements on Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") documents and to knowingly convert FEMA funds in excess of $1,000. Sturdivant was sentenced by the district court to forty-one months of imprisonment for his conspiracy conviction. The district court also found-Sturdivant guilty of contempt for conversing with a government witness in violation of a court order. The district court accordingly sentenced Stur-divant to an additional three-month sentence to run consecutively to his conspiracy sentence. The court further imposed a two-year term of supervised release, ordered Sturdivant to pay a $10,000 fine, and ordered that Sturdivant pay a $100 special assessment fee.
On appeal, Sturdivant raises six issues concerning the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial, the admission of certain evidence and testimony at his trial, and his contempt conviction. We have thoroughly reviewed the briefs in this case, the pertinent parts of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments of counsel. We conclude for essentially the same reasons outlined in the district court's order that Sturdivant was not entitled to a new trial. We have further determined that the district court did not plainly err in not granting Sturdivant an acquittal for his conspiracy charge. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and testimony Sturdivant challenges on appeal. And Sturdivant's contempt conviction was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, Sturdivant's convictions are AFFIRMED.
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.