United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 5, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-50832
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE W. FEW,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-01-CR-1195-2
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lawrence W. Few (Few) appeals his conviction on count three of
an indictment charging him under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 with knowingly
making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) during its investigation into a grand jury leak. Few
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him, attacks
the credibility of two key Government witnesses, and asserts that
the Government failed to prove the falsity of his statements to the
FBI.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
None of the trial witnesses “assert[ed] facts that the witness
physically could not have observed or events that could not have
occurred under the laws of nature.” United States v. Gadison, 8
F.3d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks, brackets,
and citation omitted). Consequently, the jury was free to weigh
the credibility of the witnesses and choose which testimony to
credit as true. See id. at 189-90. There was sufficient evidence
to show that Few lied to the FBI. Therefore, “viewing the evidence
and the inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most
favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found the
essential elements of [Few’s] offense[ ] beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Id. at 189 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Few also argues that his acquittal on counts one and two for
conspiracy to obstruct and obstructing justice is inconsistent with
his conviction on count three, and, therefore, his conviction
should be reversed. However, “inconsistent verdicts are not a bar
to conviction so long as there is sufficient evidence to support
2
the jury’s determination of guilt.” United States v. Gieger, 190
F.3d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, because there was
sufficient evidence to support Few’s conviction on count three, his
conviction may stand. Id.
Accordingly, Few’s conviction is hereby AFFIRMED.
G:\opin-sc\02-50832.opn.wpd 3