United States v. Stephans

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 3, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-31123
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
LOYD STEPHANS
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:04-CV-30027
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Loyd Stephens2 appeals his conviction and sentence for
taking a non-game bird in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (“MBTA”), 16 U.S.C. § 703.
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
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
2
The defendant spells his last name as Stephens. Hence,
court documents that have the defendant’s last name spelled as
Stephans are incorrect.
No. 04-31123
-2-
citation omitted). “Evidence is sufficient to support a
conviction if any rational trier of fact could have found that
the evidence 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.Violations of § 703 are strict liability offenses, requiring
no proof of specific intent to commit the crime. Id. at 616.
Because the evidence presented at trial indicated that the hawk
killed by Stephens was an endangered bird species and Stephens
admitted to shooting the hawk, Stephens’s conviction was
supported by substantial evidence. See Lee, 217 F.3d at 288; 50
C.F.R. § 10.13 (2005). As Stephens cannot show that he had no
reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, his conduct
was not justified under the law. See United States v. Gant, 691
F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 1982). In addition, federal law has
provided no exemptions that would allow an individual to kill an
endangered animal to protect property. See 16 U.S.C. §§ 703,
1538, 1539; see also Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill, 437 U.S.
153, 188 (1978).
Stephens also contests his sentence as excessive. Title 18,
section 3742(f)(2) and (3) requires that we affirm a sentence
unless we determine that it is plainly unreasonable. Id.No. 04-31123
-3-
Stephens’s sentence of a $600 fine, one year of probation
and a one-year ban from hunting is not plainly unreasonable given
the statute’s allowance of a $15,000 fine and 6 months of
imprisonment. See 16 U.S.C. § 707(a); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(2),
(3).
For the reasons stated above, Stephens’s conviction and
sentence are AFFIRMED.