Case: 13-60834 Document: 00512948056 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-60834 United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, February 25, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiff - Appellee Clerk
v.
AUBREY BRENT STURDIVANT,
Defendant - Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:10-CR-20-1
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Aubrey Brent Sturdivant was tried by a jury and convicted of conspiring
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 to knowingly make materially false statements
on Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) documents and to
knowingly convert FEMA funds in excess of $1,000. Sturdivant was sentenced
by the district court to forty-one months of imprisonment for his conspiracy
conviction. The district court also found Sturdivant guilty of contempt for
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-60834 Document: 00512948056 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2015
No. 13-60834
conversing with a government witness in violation of a court order. The district
court accordingly sentenced Sturdivant to an additional three-month sentence
to run consecutively to his conspiracy sentence. The court further imposed a
two-year term of supervised release, ordered Sturdivant to pay a $10,000 fine,
and ordered that Sturdivant pay a $100 special assessment fee.
On appeal, Sturdivant raises six issues concerning the district court’s
denial of his motion for a new trial, the admission of certain evidence and
testimony at his trial, and his contempt conviction. We have thoroughly
reviewed the briefs in this case, the pertinent parts of the record, the applicable
law, and the arguments of counsel. We conclude for essentially the same
reasons outlined in the district court’s order that Sturdivant was not entitled
to a new trial. We have further determined that the district court did not
plainly err in not granting Sturdivant an acquittal for his conspiracy charge.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence and
testimony Sturdivant challenges on appeal. And Sturdivant’s contempt
conviction was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, Sturdivant’s
convictions are AFFIRMED.
2