United States v. Boyd

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 21, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-31073
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
KARESHA LANAL MINNIE BOYD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 5:03-CR-50097
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Jones, and JOLLY and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Karesha Lanal Minnie Boyd appeals her conviction for
larceny in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641. She challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence.
In cases tried before a magistrate judge and affirmed on
appeal by the district court, we “will affirm the magistrate’s
findings if they are supported by substantial evidence.” United
States v. Lee, 217 F.3d 284, 288 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal citation
omitted). “Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if any
rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
Morgan, 311 F.3d 611, 613 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation and
citation omitted). This court examines the evidence as a whole in
the light most favorable to the Government. Id. “The evidence
need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be
wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except that of guilt, and
this court will accept all credibility choices that tend to support
the verdict.” United States v. Stevenson, 126 F.3d 662, 664 (5th
Cir. 1997).
Boyd notes that the stolen items of makeup were found on
the person of Erica Samuels, who has pleaded guilty to larceny.
She contends that the Government’s case was entirely circumstantial
and that her conviction was based on an assumption that she must
have known what Samuels was doing.
The evidence adduced at trial showed that Boyd and
Samuels were always in close proximity while they were in the
store. Boyd actively participated in the selection of the stolen
makeup, which Samuels placed in a gift bag and carried to a small
fitting room. Boyd then joined Samuels in the fitting room. After
Boyd exited, Samuels emerged carrying the gift bag, which, by this
time, contained empty makeup packages. After Samuels set down the
bag, the women left the store, but were soon apprehended. The
stolen makeup products were found in Samuels’s purse and in her
hair.
2
Viewing the evidence as a whole in the light most
favorable to the Government, we have determined that there was
sufficient evidence to support Boyd’s conviction. See Morgan,
311 F.3d at 613; 18 U.S.C. § 2. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court is AFFIRMED.
3