United States v. Steven Seibert
695 F. App'x 746
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Seibert was convicted of false labeling and unlawfully transporting/selling an endangered species in violation of federal law.
- Evidence showed Seibert bought an African leopard at auction, advertised it for sale from his Oklahoma ranch, negotiated sale to a Texas buyer, and physically loaded the leopard for delivery to Texas.
- Seibert asked to use Shane Clement’s Bonham, Texas address to make the sale appear legal and created a receipt listing Clement as the seller.
- Seibert’s employee drove the truck from Oklahoma to Denton, Texas, without stopping in Bonham; Seibert instructed Clement and the employee to lie that the leopard came from Clement’s address.
- Seibert moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s case and after all evidence; he also raised sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Seibert knowingly sold an endangered species in interstate commerce | Government: evidence established knowledge, interstate sale, and false paperwork | Seibert: jury should have credited his testimony over government witnesses | Court: Viewing evidence in favor of verdict, a rational juror could convict; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence for false labeling/creating false paperwork | Government: receipt and instructions to lie show knowing falsification | Seibert: disputed witness credibility and factual account | Court: Credibility determinations not revisited on appeal; evidence sufficient |
| Procedural preservation / standard of review | Government: Seibert preserved challenge by moving for acquittal, so review is de novo | Seibert: — | Court: De novo review under Jackson v. Virginia standard applied |
| Ineffective assistance based on failure to pursue entrapment / instruct on entrapment | Seibert (raised first on appeal): counsel was ineffective for not pursuing entrapment | Government: claim not timely raised on record for direct review | Court: Record insufficient to evaluate; claim dismissed without prejudice to collateral review |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Davis, 735 F.3d 194 (5th Cir.) (standard on preservation and review of sufficiency challenges)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- United States v. Fountain, 277 F.3d 714 (5th Cir.) (criminal statutes and elements in related contexts)
- United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759 (5th Cir.) (knowledge and falsification issues in wildlife prosecutions)
- United States v. Kuhrt, 788 F.3d 403 (5th Cir.) (appellate deference to jury credibility findings)
- United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829 (5th Cir.) (requirements for assessing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)