United States v. Barber

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
F I L E D
December 14, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30581
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HUETTE ALFY BARBER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(3:03-CR-30024-1)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Huette Alfy Barber appeals from his jury-verdict conviction
for theft of Government funds in the form of Social Security
Administration (SSA) checks (18 U.S.C. § 641; Count One), making
false statements to the SSA as to his assets (42 U.S.C. §
1383(a)(2); Count Two), and failing to disclose his work activities
to the SSA (42 U.S.C. § 1383a(a)(3)(A); Count Three). He contends
that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s
verdict for each count of conviction. Barber properly preserved

-- 1 of 3 --

2
this issue by moving unsuccessfully for a judgment of acquittal at
the close of the Government’s case and at the close of all the
evidence. See United States v. Izydore, 167 F.3d 213, 219 (5th
Cir. 1999).
For a sufficiency challenge, the evidence is reviewed to
determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that
the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979). In doing so, our
court views all evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from
it in the light most favorable to the Government. E.g., United
States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 168-69 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
528 U.S. 824 (1999).
For each of his counts of conviction, Barber challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence on the ground that the Government
failed to present evidence of the eligibility requirements to
receive SSA benefits. Such a showing was not an element of Count
One. See United States v. Barnes, 761 F.2d 1026, 1032 (5th Cir.
1985). Moreover, the Government presented evidence of the
eligibility requirements to receive SSA benefits, as well as
evidence that Barber was overpaid SSA benefits due to his
misrepresentations to the SSA.
For Count two, Barber contends that, without evidence of the
SSA eligibility requirements, the jury could not determine whether
his misrepresentations were material to his receiving SSA benefits,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
a necessary element of the offense. The Government presented
testimony, however, by SSA employees that Barber’s
misrepresentations affected his potential eligibility for SSA
benefits.
For Count three, Barber claims the Government failed to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally failed to disclose
his work activities in order to receive SSA benefits for which he
was ineligible. As the district court noted, however, a reasonable
juror could have inferred the requisite intent from Barber’s
repeated failure to disclose this information.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --