United States v. Levy , 103 F. App'x 828 ( 2004 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
July 19, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-31148
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-
Appellee,
versus
JOHN B. LEVY,
Defendant-
Appellant.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 85-298-M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John B. Levy appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of coram nobis.
He contends that his conviction violated Cleveland v. United States, 531 U.S. 12 (2000), because the
Government’s theory of the case was that he committed fraud in seeking and obtaining a license to
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
operate an insurance company. Levy also contends that his disbarment is a continuing consequence
of his conviction and that his coram nobis petition should not be barred by the doctrine of laches.
Levy’s superseding indictment alleged that he participated in a series of false representations
and fraudulent transactions to gain regulatory approval to purchase an insurance company, then to
pilfer that company’s assets in violation of an order of the Insurance Commission. The superseding
indictment alleged that the Insurance Commission and the citizens of Louisiana were defrauded by
Levy. However, the fraud alleged in the indictment included actual financial gain to Levy through
fraudulent transactions, some of which were designed to evade regulatory scrutiny. Levy does not
dispute that fraudulent acquisition of a company’s assets is within the scope of the federal fraud
statutes. He has not demonstrated that his conviction violated Cleveland and therefore has not shown
that the district court erred by denying petition for coram nobis relief. See United States v. Esogbue,
357 F.3d 532, 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
-2-