United States v. Rodriguez ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-20534
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TERESA RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CR-H-94-216-1
- - - - - - - - - -
July 15, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Teresa Rodriguez appeals her conviction of mail and wire
fraud and money-laundering. She contends that the district court
erred by rejecting her instructions regarding usury; that her
conviction violated double jeopardy because of the civil
forfeitures of her ranch and her residence; and that the district
court erred by basing her offense level on $65 million rather
than $12 million.
*
Pursuant to Local 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-20534
- 2 -
The district court’s instruction that a scheme to defraud
must be reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary
prudence and comprehension adequately addressed Rodriguez’s
theory that her scheme could not have deceived a reasonable
person. The district court’s instruction also reflected a
correct statement of the law. See United States v. Finney, 714
F.2d 420, 423 (5th Cir. 1983). The denial of Rodriguez’s
proposed instructions was not an abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Pettigrew, 77 F.3d 1500, 1510 (5th Cir. 1996).
Rodriguez has failed to brief whether the district court
erred by denying her double jeopardy motion relative to the ranch
property because the bankruptcy trustee was not an agent of the
sovereign. Nor has she briefed whether the district court erred
by denying her motion relative to her residence because the
forfeiture order was nonfinal. She has abandoned any such
contentions, Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); because she has failed to brief
these dispositive grounds for the denial of her motions, we need
not consider the double jeopardy contentions she does raise.
Finally, the district court did not err by applying the
money-laundering guideline to determine her base offense level.
See United States v. Leonard, 61 F.3d 1181, 1185 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.