United States v. Garland

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10673
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GENE IRVING GARLAND, Jr.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:00-CR-197-1-H
--------------------
June 3, 2002
Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gene Garland appeals his conviction of 120 counts of fraud
and money laundering. He argues that 1) the Government
constructively amended the indictment when it introduced at trial
a new theory of fraud not alleged in the indictment and 2) there
was insufficient evidence that his money-laundering offenses
affected interstate commerce and the money-laundering statutes

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 01-10673
-2-
are unconstitutional because they are not sufficiently related to
interstate commerce.
Unlike the cases relied upon by Garland and contrary to his
description of the indictment, the allegations of fraud in the
indictment covered Garland’s selling of annuities that were not
actually annuities. The evidence of such fraud did not amend the
indictment. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215-18
(1960); United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 417 (5th Cir.
1998). Furthermore, a review of the record reveals that Garland
was convicted not for alleged deception with the selling of the
annuities but for the pilfering of the money used by investors to
buy the annuities. Garland’s argument that his convictions were
based upon a new theory of fraud not alleged in the indictment is
without merit. Garland’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence of his money-laundering offenses affecting interstate
commerce and his challenge to the constitutionality of the money-
laundering statutes are also without merit. See United States v.
Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1191-92 (5th Cir. 1997); United States
v. Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 572-73 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --