Brooks
United States v. Brooks
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM ***
Brooks appeals his conviction for concealing a material fact on a matter within the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Agriculture. 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(1). He argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. 1 “We review sufficiency of evidence challenges to determine whether viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Herrera-Gonzalez, 263 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2001) (citations *667 and internal quotation marks omitted). We affirm.
The government charged that Brooks violated 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(1) when, in a letter to the Farm Services Administration (FSA), he misrepresented the value of the ranch he sold and the proportions of the total sale price attributable to Brooks and to his son-in-law, Bishop.
Section 1001(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that
18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a)(1) (2001); see also Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 , 90 S.Ct. 355 , 24 L.Ed.2d 264 (1969).
Brooks challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that he violated § 1001(a)(1) by concealing a…