United States v. Wilson

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
September 7, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60768
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KEVIS WILSON, also known as K-Money,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:04-CR-114-1
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kevis Wilson was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct
interstate commerce (Count One), aiding and abetting obstruction
of interstate commerce (Count Two), aiding and abetting the
possession of more than $5,000 of stolen currency (Count Three),
and aiding and abetting the interstate transportation of more
than $5,000 of stolen currency (Count Four). He appeals, arguing
that the district court did not have jurisdiction to try him on
Count Two. The district court did, however, have jurisdiction.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 05-60768
-2-
See United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630-31 (2002); United
States v. Jacquez-Beltran, 326 F.3d 661, 662 (5th Cir. 2003).
Wilson also argues that the evidence at trial was
insufficient to support his conviction on Count Two. Because
Wilson made a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of
all the evidence, this court ordinarily would review his
conviction to determine whether a rational trier of fact could
have found that the evidence established the essential elements
of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v.
Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). However, the
Government argues that Wilson did not preserve his sufficiency
claim for appeal, because his motion for a judgment of acquittal
did not specifically raise this argument, and that Wilson is
entitled to relief only if he can establish that affirming his
conviction would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
See United States v. Herrera, 313 F.3d 882, 884-85 (5th Cir.
2002) (en banc). This court need not decide which standard of
review applies, because Wilson’s sufficiency claim fails even if
he preserved it.
To support Wilson’s conviction for aiding and abetting
obstruction of interstate commerce, the Government had to
establish that Wilson aided and abetted in the commission of a
robbery and that the robbery interfered with interstate commerce.
See United States v. Ferguson, 211 F.3d 878, 885 (5th Cir. 2000).
Wilson challenges only the sufficiency of the robbery element.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 05-60768
-3-
The testimony established that Grand Casino Tunica owned the
money stolen by the defendants. Therefore, the jury rationally
could have found that the casino was the victim of the theft.
See United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Carpenter, 611 F.2d 113, 114 (5th Cir. 1980).
The testimony also established that the defendants took the
casino’s money by threatening to use force or violence against
the casino’s property or its employees and patrons who were
present at the time of the taking or obtaining of the property,
that at least one casino patron reported the robbery to casino
security, and that other patrons reported the robbery to casino
employees. Therefore, the jury rationally could have found that
the defendants obstructed interstate commerce by robbery. See 18
U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1); Jaramillo, 42 F.3d at 923. Accordingly, the
evidence was sufficient to sustain Wilson’s conviction for aiding
and abetting obstruction of interstate commerce.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --