United States v. Ausbon ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31031
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
JARON JEROD AUSBON
Defendant - Appellant
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CR-102-1
- - - - - - - - - -
May 18, 2001
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeron Jerod Ausbon appeals his conviction of making a false
statement to a firearms dealer, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(a)(6). According to the indictment, Ausbon had falsely
represented on a federal firearms form that he was not under
indictment or information at the time he attempted to purchase a
gun, when Ausbon in fact stood accused under seven separate bills
of information.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-31031
-2-
Ausbon contends that the evidence was insufficient to
establish a jury finding that he knew that he was technically
under “information” at the time he purchased the gun. Because
the very form signed by Ausbon specifically defined “information”
as “a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting
attorney,” and because the evidence showed that Ausbon had made
many court appearance with respect to these charges, the jury was
authorized to determine that Ausbon was well aware that he was
under “information” at the time. See United States v. El-Zoubi,
993 F.2d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Ortiz-Loya,
777 F.2d 973, 979 (5th Cir. 1985).
Ausbon also argues that the court erred in issuing an
“improper” and “wrong” jury instruction regarding the element of
knowledge, as the instruction did not comply with the Fifth
Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions on this matter. The court was
authorized to tailor a specific instruction to govern the unique
facts of the case before the jury. See United States v. Wyly,
193 F.3d 289, 300 (5th Cir. 1999). As a whole, the instruction
given at Ausbon’s trial did not incorrectly state the law, and
the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the
instruction. See id.AFFIRMED.