Case: 22-60580 Document: 00516785356 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
June 13, 2023
No. 22-60580
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
____________
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Cameron L. Hickman,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:19-CR-88-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Cameron Hickman appeals his conviction of aggravated sexual abuse
of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 & 2241(c). He contends that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the government
failed to prove that he engaged in a “sexual act” with the victim, as required
by § 2241(c). Our review is de novo. See United States v. Garcia-Gonzalez,
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60580 Document: 00516785356 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2023
No. 22-60580
714 F.3d 306, 313 (5th Cir. 2013).
The term “sexual act” is defined, in relevant part, as “contact
between the penis and the vulva or the penis and the anus,” and “contact
involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 2246(2)(A). The victim testified that Hickman removed her clothing,
including her underwear, and that she felt Hickman’s penis inside her body.
The victim’s mother testified that when she walked in on the assault, the
victim was wearing underwear.
We disagree with Hickman’s assertion that the victim’s testimony
was incredible as a matter of law. A federal conviction may “be based on the
uncorroborated testimony of a single witness,” United States v. Hoskins,
628 F.2d 295, 296 (5th Cir. 1980), and “[w]hether there were inconsisten-
cies” in the victim’s account “and, if so, how this affected [her] credibility,
were questions for the jury,” United States v. De Los Santos, 625 F.2d 62, 65
(5th Cir. 1980). Although the underwear was not collected as evidence, and
swabs from the victim’s sexual assault exam tested negative for seminal fluid,
these facts do not foreclose the possibility of penetration.
We also reject Hickman’s argument that the victim’s testimony was
incredible because it contradicted the laws of nature. Even if we were to
accept his contention that penetration through underwear is physically
impossible, the laws-of-nature “doctrine is used sparingly and should apply
only where the underlying physical facts are themselves undisputed.” United
States v. Hutson, No. 92-4324, 1992 WL 366846, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 2, 1992)
(unpublished but precedential per to 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3). We decline to
apply the doctrine here, where the pertinent underlying fact of whether the
victim was wearing underwear during the assault is disputed.
Considered in the light most favorable to the government, the evi-
dence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that Hickman committed
2
Case: 22-60580 Document: 00516785356 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/13/2023
No. 22-60580
a sexual act as required by the statute of conviction. See United States v.
Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc). Accordingly,
the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
3