479 F. App'x 568
5th Cir.2012Background
- Crook, an emergency-room physician, participated in relief programs tied to the 1998 drought in northern Louisiana through CFP and CPC.
- Crook had power-of-attorney for CFP and was a CPC partner; he filed the CLDAP application for CFP.
- The CLDAP and an emergency loan used incorrect yield figures, omitting 45,000 hundredweight of rice.
- Crook pledged farm equipment as collateral for an FSA loan and later sold some assets without notifying the FSA, using proceeds to pay a bank.
- He was convicted on eight counts (two §1014 false statements; six §658 disposals) and sentenced to 24 months with restitution and a $800 special assessment; he challenges several trial errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex Post Facto challenge to §1014 | Crook argues §1014 did not cover FSA statements before the 1999 amendment. | Government says the reform was merely a form change; acts were punishable under the prior statute. | No Ex Post Facto violation; amendment was form-only and Crook was not prejudiced. |
| Admission of Rule 404(b) evidence | Evidence of collateral pledges and concealment shows Crook’s intent; relevant to mens rea. | Evidence admits under Beechum for motive/intent with proper limiting instruction; not unduly prejudicial. | District court did not abuse discretion; Beechum steps satisfied; limiting instruction given. |
| Exclusion of expert testimony (Rule 16) | Exclusion deprived Crook of essential expert testimony. | District court correctly concluded no sanction less than exclusion appropriate; discovery rules complied. | No abuse of discretion; ruling affirmed; ineffective-assistance claim forfeited for inadequate briefing. |
| Compulsory process (Sixth Amendment) | Government impeded Crook’s ability to obtain Casey as a witness. | Casey was not unavailable; government facilitated contact but Crook did not pursue relief. | No violation; government did not render Casey unavailable; no constitutional error. |
| Jury instruction on Crook’s good-faith defense | Requested instruction on bank assignment timing was central to defense. | Court’s instructions adequately conveyed good-faith defense; instruction not directly relevant collateral matter. | No abuse; instructions allowed Crook to argue good faith; defense not seriously impaired. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blum v. United States, 212 F.2d 907 (5th Cir. 1954) (form change not an Ex Post Facto violation)
- Burgess v. United States, 553 U.S. 124 (2008) (no lenity when no ambiguity)
- United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc Beechum two-step test for 404(b))
- United States v. Colin, 928 F.2d 676 (5th Cir. 1991) (compulsory process principles; witness unavailable analysis)
- United States v. Davis, 639 F.2d 239 (5th Cir. Unit B Mar. 1981) (Taylor v. Illinois framework (predecessor))
- Templeton v. United States, 624 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 404(b) and evidentiary standards guidance)