UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-60599
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT A. CARTER, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
_________________________________________________________________
July 24, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert A. Carter, Sr., appeals his conviction of
conversion of government property. He contends that the district
court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal and
by imposing restitution in the amount of the insurance proceeds he
converted.
The deed of trust gave the Veterans Administration (V.A.)
control over the disposition of Carter’s insurance proceeds; the
second deed of trust with Southern Federal did not diminish the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
V.A.’s control. The V.A. attempted to exercise its control by
electing to apply the proceeds to Carter’s indebtedness. The V.A.
contemplated and manifested control of the proceeds. See United
States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 472 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439
U.S. 870 (1978). Carter’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his conviction thus is unconvincing.
The property at issue in Carter’s case was the insurance
proceeds of $33,259.50; the district court imposed restitution in
that amount. The foreclosure and subsequent sale of the insured
real estate, while not necessarily irrelevant to restitution, were
found by the trial court not to have been adequately proved in the
PSR. The court was entitled to conclude also that the real estate
and the mortgages related to it were not the properties forming the
basis of Carter’s conviction. Carter converted $33,259.50 in funds
rightfully belonging to the V.A. to his own use. The V.A. lost at
least that amount. Carter’s argument for a net restitution amount
of $8,795.50 make no sense. The restitution portion of Carter’s
sentence was not an abuse of discretion. United States v. Reese,
998 F.2d 1275, 1282 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED
2