IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30474
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOREA DELENE MCNAMEE BLOUNT, also known as Catheryne Connie
Dayle Delaney,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CR-50073-ALL
--------------------
October 29, 2002
Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jorea Delene McNamee Blount appeals her convictions and
sentences for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud,
and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341, 1343.
Finding no error, we affirm.
Blount argues that the indictment against her was
defective because it failed to allege the element of materiality
with respect to the mail and wire fraud counts. The allegations of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 02-30474
-2-
specific facts contained in the indictment were sufficient to
warrant the inference of materiality. See United States v.
Richards, 204 F.3d 177, 192 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 826
(2000); United States v. McGough, 510 F.2d 598, 603 (5th Cir.
1975). Thus, under either a plain error or a maximum liberality
standard of review, Blount has not shown error with respect to the
sufficiency of her indictment. See United States v. Cotton, 122 S.
Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002); United States v. Guzman-Ocampo, 236 F.3d
233, 236 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2000).
Blount also argues that there was insufficient evidence
to support her convictions. She contends that there was no
evidence of an agreement to conduct unlawful activity or of an ab
initio intent to defraud. However, viewed in the light most
favorable to the verdict, there was evidence of involvement by
Blount’s mother from which a rational jury could have drawn the
inference that there was a conspiratorial agreement to commit mail
and wire fraud. See United States v. Charroux, 3 F.3d 827, 830-31
(5th Cir. 1993). There was also ample evidence from which a
rational jury could have drawn the inference that there was an ab
initio intent to defraud. See id.
Blount also asserts that the district court erred in
departing upward from the guideline sentencing range and in
calculating the loss amount for sentencing purposes. By failing to
provide the applicable standard of review or any citation to
authority in support of her contentions, Blount has failed
No. 02-30474
-3-
adequately to brief these sentencing issues. See FED. R. APP.
P. 28(a)(9)(A) and (B). Thus, Blount’s sentencing issues are
deemed abandoned. See United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 443
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 410 (2001). See also
Cavallini v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 256, 260 n.9
(5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.