United States v. Nelson

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 30, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50932
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
WARREN KENNETH NELSON
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:05-CR-256-ALL
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Warren Kenneth Nelson appeals from his jury verdict
conviction and sentence for passing a counterfeit United States
Treasury check. He argues that the evidence produced at trial
was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Nelson properly
preserved this issue for appeal. See United States v. Moreno,
185 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 1999). Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact
could have found that the Government proved all the essential
elements of Nelson’s offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50932
-2-
United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575 (5th Cir. 1999).
Nelson also argues that the district court erred by providing the
jury with a deliberate ignorance instruction. Our review of the
evidence shows that the deliberate ignorance instruction was
warranted in this case. See United States v. Saucedo-Munoz, 307
F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir. 2002).
Nelson argues that the district court erred in determining
the amount of restitution and in ordering the payment of
restitution in a lump sum. Due to Nelson’s failure to object in
district court on these specific bases, his challenge to the
restitution order is reviewed only for plain error. See United
States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 169 (5th Cir. 2005). Nelson has
failed to make such a showing.
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.