United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 8, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-30698
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PATRICIA FRASER BEDFORD; MELISSA BEDFORD BLALOCK,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 2:01-CR-20136-1
USDC No. 2:01-CR-20136-2
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The defendants, Patricia Bedford and her daughter, Melissa
Blalock, appeal their convictions and sentences after a jury
convicted them on one count of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371
and 14 underlying counts of failure to refund federal education
funds in violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1097(a). The defendants
operated a vocational school and failed to refund to the United
States Department of Education federal student financial aid
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-30698
-2-
funds that became refundable when certain students withdrew from
the school.
The defendants contend that the evidence was insufficient to
convict them. Because they failed to renew their motions for
acquittal at the close of all the evidence, we review the
evidence only to determine whether there was “a manifest
miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Green, 293 F.3d 886,
895 (5th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). We review the direct and
circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the
verdict, and we accept all reasonable inferences and credibility
choices in favor of the verdict. United States v. Griffin, 324
F.3d 330, 356 (5th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). For there to
be a manifest miscarriage of justice, “the record must be devoid
of evidence of guilt or the evidence must be so tenuous that a
conviction is shocking.” United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433,
449 (5th Cir. 2004).
There was ample direct and circumstantial evidence that (1)
the defendants acted in leadership positions at the school; (2)
the shared with each other joint responsibilities and authority
over financial matters, financial aid, and attendance records;
(3) the school employed procedures for keeping the defendants
timely informed of refunds due; (4) the defendants maintained an
overall awareness of what was happening at the small school; (5)
school records adequately reflected the students’ attendance and
financial aid balances; (6) the defendants retained federal funds
No. 04-30698
-3-
for their personal use; and (7) the defendants declined to make
refunds on behalf of each student named in the indictment. Based
on this evidence, the jury reasonably could have inferred that
the defendants participated in a conspiracy, that they were aware
of the need to refund money on behalf each student named in the
indictment, and that they willfully and intentionally failed to
pay refunds. See Griffin, 324 F.3d at 356-58. A guilty verdict
on all counts based on the foregoing evidence is not a manifest
miscarriage of justice.
The defendants contend that the district court abused its
discretion by failing to instruct the jury that
“maladministration of a business” was not a violation of 20
U.S.C. § 1097(a). The court accurately and adequately instructed
the jury that the Government was required to prove that the
defendants’ failure to make refunds was willful and intentional,
and the court’s instruction permitted the jury to consider the
defendants’ theory that their failure to pay refunds was merely
the result of poor finances and mistakes. See Bates v. United
States, 522 U.S. 23, 25, 29-31 (1997). The district court did
not abuse its discretion by declining to make the requested
instruction.
The defendants contend that their sentences must be vacated
because the district court applied the federal sentencing
guidelines as if they were mandatory, in violation of United
States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). This issue is reviewed
No. 04-30698
-4-
only for plain error because it was not raised in the district
court. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d 728,
732 (5th Cir. 2005). The application of mandatory guidelines was
an error that was “plain.” See id. at 733. However, the
defendants failed to show that the error affected their
substantial rights because they pointed to nothing in the record
to suggest that the district court would have imposed lesser
sentences under Booker’s advisory guidelines scheme. See id. at
733; United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 521-22 (5th Cir.
2005), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-
9517); see also United States v. Martinez-Lugo, __F.3d__, No.
04-40478, 2005 WL 1331282, *2 (5th Cir. June 7, 2005) (citing
Mares and rejecting an assertion that application of mandatory
guidelines is “structural error”). Accordingly, they fail to
show “plain error.” See Valenzuela-Quevedo, 407 F.3d at 732-33.
The defendants’ convictions and sentences are
AFFIRMED.