United States v. Cole , 186 F. App'x 539 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit July 18, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-10782
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
STUART R. COLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
3:03-CR-431-ALL
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After reviewing the record in this case and considering the
briefs of the parties and argument of counsel, we are satisfied
that the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict
rendered by the jury.
Cole argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the
fraud element of the various counts on which he was convicted. In
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
reviewing a sufficiency challenge, our task is to determine from
the record whether a reasonable jury could find that the evidence
establishes the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S.
v. Mesnesses, 962 F.2d 420, 426 (5th Cir. 1992)(citing United
States v. Gonzales, 866 F.2d 781, 783 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 490
U.S. 1093, 109 S.Ct. 2438 (1989)). Considering the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict, the record amply supports the
jury’s implicit finding that Cole made fraudulent
misrepresentations in a number of respects. These include the
following:
1. Attaching a map to the private placement memorandum
distributed to potential investors showing the positions of
existing “producing” wells when, in fact, none of the wells were
producing either gas or oil.
2. After representing to investors in joint ventures B and C
that he would invest their funds to drill gas wells, he used the
money to pay off disgruntled investors who had invested in earlier
prospects.
3. After representing that funds from investors would be used
for the purpose of drilling gas wells, he used portions of those
funds to purchase personal luxury items for himself.
4. He persuaded one investor to invest an additional $300,000
to “complete” wells that had never been drilled.
Although Cole testified that any misrepresentations he made to
investors were made in the good-faith belief that they were true,
2
the jury obviously rejected that testimony, which it was entitled
to do.
The judgment of conviction is therefore
AFFIRMED.
3