United States v. Burress

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 19, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40611
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BOBBIE MCCOY BURRESS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CR-11-ALL
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bobbie McCoy Burress appeals his conviction for failure to
appear for service of sentence in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3146(a)(2). Burress argues only that the evidence was
insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his failure
to appear was willful.
Because Burress properly moved for a judgment of acquittal
after the Government rested and at the close of the evidence, the
standard of review for his sufficiency challenge is “whether,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-40611
-2-
considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the
evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United
States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000).
Two days before he was to report to a facility in Fort
Worth, Texas, to begin serving his sentence, Burress was in Grand
Prairie, Texas. However, on the day he was to report, Burress’s
vehicle was traced to Wyoming; one day later, when he was taken
into custody by local law enforcement officials, Burress was in
Montana. As he was being taken into custody, Burress admitted
that he was supposed to have reported the previous day; however,
he explained that he had come to Montana to take care of
unspecified family business and that he was returning to Texas.
Based upon this evidence, we conclude that a reasonable trier of
fact could have found that Burress acted willfully in failing to
report as ordered. See Mendoza, 226 F.3d at 343.
AFFIRMED.