United States v. Bryant

Second Circuit

United States v. Bryant

142 F. App'x 534

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 6, 2005

DocketDocket No. 04-5682-CR

StatusPublished

This text of 142 F. App'x 534 (United States v. Bryant) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Bryant, 142 F. App'x 534 (2d Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Defendant Diana M. Bryant appeals from an October 6, 2004 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, /.), convicting Bryant of five counts of bank fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Bryant was sentenced to five-months’ imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $39,000. We assume familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

There was sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent to sustain the jury’s verdict. See, e.g., United States v. Geibel, 369 F.3d 682, 689 (2d Cir.2004) (sufficiency challenge fails if “the evidence, when viewed in its totality and in the light most favorable to the government, would permit any rational jury to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Defendant Diana M. Bryant appeals from an October 6, 2004 judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Mordue, /.), convicting Bryant of five counts of bank fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Bryant was sentenced to five-months’ imprisonment to be followed by five years of supervised release, and was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $39,000. We assume familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.

There was sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent to sustain the jury’s verdict. See, e.g., United States v. Geibel, 369 F.3d 682, 689 (2d Cir.2004) (sufficiency challenge fails if “the evidence, when viewed in its totality and in the light most favorable to the government, would permit any rational jury to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt”).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 F. App'x 534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-bryant-ca2-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack