United States v. Maxwell

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10418
Summary Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Marcus Maxwell,

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:17-CR-70-1

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
After a bench trial, the district court convicted Marcus Maxwell, a
former officer in the Dallas Police Department and owner of a trucking
business, on two counts of obstructing justice by making false statements to
FBI agents related to a grand jury investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 9, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-10418 Document: 00515557002 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2020

No. 19-10418
2
§ 1503(a), and one count of making another false statement to the FBI, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a). The investigations were directed at a large
truck-cargo theft ring in the Dallas area. Specifically, Count One of the
indictment charged Maxwell with falsely telling the FBI that never told a
person named Geane Doby to steal anything for him; Count Two charged
Maxwell with falsely telling the FBI that he never received a global
positioning system device (GPS) from Doby; and Count Three charged him
with falsely telling the FBI that he did not attempt to hire Doby to disable a
truck belonging to a rival who owed Maxwell money.
On appeal, Maxwell first contends that there was insufficient evidence
of guilt on Counts One and Two because there was no proof that he was
explicitly told that he was a target of a grand jury proceeding and that he thus
did not act with the specific intent to influence or obstruct the grand jury
proceeding. He also contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict
him on Count Three because there was inadequate proof that his statement
was material.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence following a
bench trial, we ask whether the guilty verdict is supported by “evidence
sufficient to justify the trial judge, as the trier of fact, in concluding beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.” United States v. Turner, 319
F.3d 716, 720 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We do not weigh the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. Id. Rather, we
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, and all
reasonable inferences by the district court are afforded deference. Id. at 720-
21.
Based on Maxwell’s two interviews with the FBI, the trial court
reasonably concluded that Maxwell was aware of the grand jury proceeding,
and that the FBI was connected to that proceeding, and that he was at least
Case: 19-10418 Document: 00515557002 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/09/2020

No. 19-10418
3
one of the targets of the grand jury investigation. Moreover, the evidence is
clear that Maxwell lied to the FBI when he denied that he ever asked Doby
to steal anything for him and when he said that he never received a GPS from
Doby. Given the requisite deference to the trial court and its weighing of the
evidence, the guilty verdict is supported by sufficient evidence that Maxwell
violated § 1503(a). See Turner, 319 F.3d at 720-21; see also United States v.
Bedoy, 827 F.3d 495, 504-07 (5th Cir. 2016). The convictions on Count One
and Count Two are AFFIRMED.
As to Count Three, the violation of § 1001(a), Maxwell contends only
that the evidence was insufficient to prove that his statement was material to
the FBI’s investigation. A statement is material if it had “a natural tendency
to influence” or was “capable of influencing, the decision of the
decisionmaking body to which it was addressed.” United States v. Richardson,
676 F.3d 491, 505 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see United States v. Najera Jimenez, 593 F.3d 391, 400 (5th Cir.
2010).
Maxwell argues that, even if he admitted attempting to hire Doby to
disable the truck, he would not have been exposed to any federal criminal
charges. Thus, he says that his false statement did not have the capability or
tendency to influence the FBI. Maxwell cites no authority for requiring that
a false statement be made with the particular intent to evade or avoid
prosecution for a federal crime. On the contrary, in United States v. Abrahem,
678 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2012), we held that the materiality requirement was
satisfied where a statement affected the decision on whether to proceed to
the next step of an investigation. Id. at 374. Here, evidence supported the
district court’s finding that Maxwell’s false statement had a natural tendency
to affect the FBI’s decision whether to pursue criminal corruption charges
against Maxwell and also influenced the manner in which the FBI’s
Case: 19-10418 Document: 00515557002 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/09/2020

No. 19-10418
4
investigation of Maxwell and others would proceed. See id. The conviction
on Count Three is also AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-10418 Document: 00515557002 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/09/2020