United States v. Chaney ( 2021 )

Case: 20-20049 Document: 00515778874 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 12, 2021
No. 20-20049
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Harold Chaney,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CR-672-2
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Haynes and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Following a jury trial, Harold Chaney was convicted of one count of
conspiracy to commit wire fraud and six counts of aggravated identity theft
and aiding and abetting. All seven counts arose from his involvement in a
scheme in which he and his coconspirators used others’ checking account
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
Case: 20-20049 Document: 00515778874 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2021
No. 20-20049
information to make counterfeit checks, which they used to buy a variety of
goods and merchandise including roofing shingles, a pressure washer, a
laptop, and a washer and dryer. Now, Chaney argues that the evidence does
not suffice to uphold his conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud.
When, as is the case here, a sufficiency claim is preserved, review is
de novo. United States v. Brown, 727 F.3d 329, 335 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing
United States v. Read, 710 F.3d 219, 226 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam)). Under
this standard, the relevant question is whether “any rational trier of fact
could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting United States v. Cooper, 714 F.3d
873, 880 (5th Cir. 2013)). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable
to the verdict. United States v. Moreland, 665 F.3d 137, 149 (5th Cir. 2011)
(quoting United States v. Shum, 496 F.3d 390, 391 (5th Cir. 2007)).
The elements of conspiring to commit wire fraud are that at least two
people agreed to commit fraud, that the defendant was aware of the unlawful
purpose of the agreement, and that the defendant joined the agreement with
the intent of furthering the fraud. United States v. Beacham, 774 F.3d 267,
272 (5th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Grant, 683 F.3d 639, 643 (5th
Cir.2012)). An agreement to conspire to commit wire fraud “may be inferred
from concert of action, voluntary participation may be inferred from a
collection of circumstances, and knowledge may be inferred from
surrounding circumstances.” Id. (quoting United States v. Simpson, 741 F.3d
539, 547 (5th Cir.2014)).
Trial evidence showed, inter alia, that Chaney spoke numerous times
with the individual who stole the checks, that pictures of stolen checks were
found on Chaney’s phone, that items used to carry out the conspiracy were
found in Chaney’s home and in a storage unit he frequented, and that Chaney
2
Case: 20-20049 Document: 00515778874 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2021
No. 20-20049
moved stolen objects. The trial evidence suffices to uphold the verdict. See
Beacham, 774 F.3d at 272-76; Brown, 727 F.3d at 335.
AFFIRMED.
3