United States v. Manges ( 2000 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50025
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLINTON MANGES,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-99-CV-169
USDC No. SA-94-CR-319-1
--------------------
December 6, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court granted to Clinton Manges, federal
prisoner # 64001-080, a certificate of appealability (COA) to
appeal the issue “whether, in light of United States v. Brumley
[Brumley III], 116 F.3d 728 (5th Cir. 1997) (en banc), Manges was
denied due process and a fair trial on charges of conspiracy [to
commit mail fraud] under 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343, 1346, as
contained and addressed in Manges’ Claim for Relief 1.” Manges
has not shown that the district court erred in holding that he
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-50025
-2-
was not denied due process or a fair trial in view of Brumley
III. In Brumley III, the court upheld the “honest services”
theory and determined that to establish that a state official
committed wire fraud, the Government must prove that the state
official breached or violated a state duty. Brumley III, 116
F.3d at 734. This court may affirm Manges’ conviction if either
theory is supported by sufficient evidence. See Griffin v.
United States, 502 U.S. 46, 56-60 (1991).
A review of the record indicates that Manges’ conduct
constituted a conspiracy to commit mail fraud under either the
“honest services” theory as defined by Brumley III or the theory
that he conspired to defraud the citizens of Texas of the mineral
lease at issue. On direct appeal, the court determined that the
evidence established that Manges and his codefendants induced
Jack Giberson to accept false documents and to accept a $10,000
payment in order to prevent a state mineral lease from reverting
back to the State of Texas for lack of production. See United
States v. Manges, 110 F.3d 1162, 1167-68, 1172-73 (5th Cir.
1997). The court also stated that it was undisputed that the
mineral lease should have reverted back to the State for lack of
production. See id. at 1167. Thus, the evidence established
that Manges induced Giberson to accept false documents and to
accept something of value, depriving citizens of their intangible
right to honest services. The evidence also established that
Manges and his codefendants prevented the mineral lease from
reverting to the State, and thereby, deprived the citizens of
No. 00-50025
-3-
Texas of the mineral lease and any revenue that might have been
raised by releasing the mineral rights to another party.
For the first time on appeal, Manges argues that the
indictment was legally insufficient because it did not allege
that Manges and his codefendants induced Giberson to violate a
state-law imposed duty. This court’s review is limited to the
issue or issues on which the district court granted a COA. See
Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.