Court Opinion

ID: 9407191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 00:00:35.395545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.027005
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30651        Document: 00516809933             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/05/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-30651
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                     July 5, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                          Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                            versus

   Chanda L. Hall,

                                              Defendant—Appellant.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Middle District of Louisiana
                               USDC No. 3:21-CR-6-1
                     ______________________________

   Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Chanda L. Hall appeals her bench-trial convictions for wire fraud and
   making false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1001(a)(2),
   claiming there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions.
   Additionally, she challenges the application of a two-level enhancement

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30651      Document: 00516809933           Page: 2     Date Filed: 07/05/2023

                                     No. 22-30651

   under Sentencing Guideline § 3C1.1 for obstructing the administration of
   justice.
          Hall elected to testify at trial. Her waiver of her right to a jury trial
   and her plea of not guilty in a bench trial serves as a motion for acquittal,
   preserving her sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges. See United States v.
   Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139, 1159 (5th Cir. 1993).
          Our review “focus[es] on whether the finding of guilt is supported by
   substantial evidence, i.e., evidence sufficient to justify the trial judge, as the
   trier of fact, in concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is
   guilty”. United States v. Smith, 895 F.3d 410, 415 (5th Cir. 2018) (citation
   omitted). In that analysis, we neither weigh the evidence nor assess the
   credibility of witnesses. E.g., United States v. Tovar, 719 F.3d 376, 388 (5th
   Cir. 2013). Evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Government,
   and we “defer to all reasonable inferences drawn by the trial court”. Id
   (citation omitted).
          The court found several aspects of Hall’s testimony incredible. She
   has forfeited any challenge she may have had to this adverse credibility
   determination by failing to brief the issue. See United States v. Banks, 624
   F.3d 261, 264 (5th Cir. 2010).
          Hall reiterates the defensive theory presented at trial and asks us to
   reweigh the evidence and make our own credibility determinations, which we
   may not do. See Smith, 895 F.3d at 415. Her reliance on her testimony—
   again, which the district court found to be incredible in part—is insufficient
   to show her convictions were not supported by substantial evidence. See
   § 1343 (providing elements of wire fraud); § 1001(a)(2) (making false
   statements).
          Hall does not challenge the court’s alternative basis for the Guideline
   § 3C1.1 enhancement based on her providing false testimony at trial.

                                           2
Case: 22-30651    Document: 00516809933          Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/05/2023

                                  No. 22-30651

   Accordingly, she has abandoned any challenge to that basis. See Banks, 624
   F.3d at 264.
         AFFIRMED.

                                       3