USA v. Allen Brice

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-60374 Affirmed] Judge: CDK, Judge: JWE, Judge: SAH. Mandate issue date is 05/07/2018 for Appellant Allen Brice [17-60374]

Case: 17-60374

Document: 00514428558

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/13/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

No. 17-60374
Summary Calendar

FILED
April 13, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
ALLEN BRICE,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:16-CR-2-2
Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Allen Brice appeals his jury trial convictions on seven counts of aiding
and assisting in the preparation and presentation of a false tax return and his
cumulative sentence of 63 months of imprisonment. See 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2).
Reviewing de novo, we affirm. See United States v. Jara-Favela, 686 F.3d 289,
299 (5th Cir. 2012).

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
*

Case: 17-60374

Document: 00514428558

Page: 2

Date Filed: 04/13/2018

No. 17-60374
The convictions resulted from Brice’s work preparing income tax returns
in the office of Flash Financial, a Gulfport, Mississippi, business owned by his
co-defendant, Jeremi Washington. Each count charged that Brice did willfully
aid and assist in, and procure, counsel, and advise the preparation and
presentation to the Internal Revenue Service of a materially false tax return.
In its jury instructions, the district court stated that § 7206 makes it a crime
for anyone to willfully aid or assist in the preparation of a document under the
Internal Revenue laws that is false or fraudulent as to any material matter.
We reject Brice’s argument that the district court erroneously permitted
a constructive amendment of the indictment by not requiring the Government
to prove all matters alleged conjunctively in each count of conviction; the
district court’s jury charge comports with our precedent. See United States v.
Bennett, 874 F.3d 236, 257 (5th Cir. 2017); United States v. Holley, 831 F.3d
322, 328 n.14 (5th Cir. 2016). We see no merit in Brice’s contention that a
defendant is prejudiced if the Government is not required to commit, before
trial, to what Brice calls the indictment’s material elements that that the
Government intends to prove.

Our caselaw amply alerts a defendant to

prepare a defense against each and every means of violating a disjunctive
statute alleged conjunctively in an indictment, as proof of even one of them
suffices for a conviction. See Bennett, 874 F.3d at 257; Holley, 831 F.3d at 328.
AFFIRMED.

2