UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 99-60514
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LISA BROWN WOODARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(3:99-CR-28-1-LS)
_________________________________________________________________
May 12, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lisa Brown Woodard appeals her conviction, by a jury, for bank
robbery, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), and using a firearm
during the commission of a crime of violence, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1).
Woodard maintains the evidence was insufficient because at
trial, none of the witnesses to the robbery could identify her as
the robber. The witnesses were unable to do so; but, identity may
be proved through circumstantial evidence. E.g., United States v.
Guerrero, 169 F.3d 933, 941 (5th Cir. 1999).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
The evidence was more than sufficient. Examples follow. The
witnesses’ descriptions of the robber closely resemble Woodard.
Moreover, all three had been able to see the license plate on the
car that the robber was driving. That car belonged to Woodard’s
sister, and Woodard admitted to investigators that she was driving
the car in the vicinity of the bank on the morning of the robbery.
Additionally, glasses and a coat, similar to those worn by the
robber, were recovered from a van belonging to Woodard’s husband.
Moreover, Woodard’s brother, paroled from prison shortly before the
robbery, testified that, approximately two weeks before the
robbery, Woodard told him of her plans to rob the bank. Finally,
Woodard’s brother took an FBI Agent to the location where he
claimed he, Woodard, and others burned evidence of the robbery.
FBI agents recovered paperclips, which were later identified as
being similar to the ones used by the bank to clip money together.
Woodard’s contention that the Government violated her due
process rights by failing to disclose evidentiary items in a timely
manner is conclusional and frivolous. She has not remotely shown
how any of the allegedly withheld evidence was exculpatory or
material. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87-88 (1963); United
States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674-75 (1985).
AFFIRMED
- 2 -