United States v. Crane ( 2003 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10452
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CURTIS CHARLES CRANE
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:01-CR-175-1-A
--------------------
February 12, 2003
Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Curtis Charles Crane appeals his conviction for
counterfeiting obligations of the United States and possessing
counterfeit obligations and aiding and abetting. He argues that
the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and that
the district court erred by sentencing him at offense level 15
under U.S.S.G. § 2B5.1(b)(3). In support of these arguments,
Crane contends that the record does not support a finding that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10452
-2-
the bills bore the requisite resemblance to genuine obligations
of the United States or that anyone would have been deceived by
them. He notes that he was arrested immediately after the first
attempt to pass a counterfeit bill at a store and that an attempt
to use a bill in a change machine was unsuccessful.
According to Crane’s accomplice, she and Crane worked to
improve the quality of the bills they created until the bills
appeared to be passable. Evidence in the presentence report
showed that a secret service agent believed that the bills were
acceptable enough to be passed into circulation. Finally, the
district court determined, based on an examination of the bills,
that they were likely to be accepted if subject to minimal
scrutiny. The district court’s factual finding regarding the
quality of the bills is not clearly erroneous, and Crane has not
established that his conviction would result in a manifest
miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Delgado, 256 F.3d
264, 274 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Bollman, 141 F.3d 184,
186-87 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.