United States v. Crook, No. 11-30401, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12575 (5th Cir. Jun. 20, 2012)

(appeal from criminal conviction against doctor/farmer for making false statements on application for emergency aid and for selling secured property for emergency loan without notifying Farm Service Agency (FSA); on appeal defendant made multiple claims of error; defendant claimed convictions violated Ex Post Facto Clause of Constitution because at time they were made, no criminal penalty for making false statements to FSA existed because statute mentioned only Farmers Home Administration (FHA), which was separate and distinct agency created under USDA reorganization and statute did not apply to FSA until amendment occurring after defendant’s acts added “successor agency” to statute; court disagreed as precedent clearly established that Ex Post Facto Clause not implicated when statutory change reflects change of name of agency only rather than substance of violation; defendant also claimed prejudicial error in admission of evidence that he personally owned assets (Cessna airplane and cotton gin) pledged for collateral rather than his farming operation, which caused FSA to not find personal liens on property; court found no unfair prejudice as evidence was admitted to show farmer’s involvement in criminal conduct when he claimed lack of intent as defense and limited instruction given to jury; court found no error in trial court’s exclusion of defendant’s expert witness for discovery violation in failing to provide summary of testimony to government as required by rule; court found no error in failing to give defendant’s requested jury instruction; court also found no violation of compulsory process claim when witness was allowed to leave state without being called to testify by government and contact information for witness was provided to defendant; court found exclusion of bank documents was not error because content was cumulative of other evidence presented; finally, court found sufficient evidence existed for rational jury to find all elements of criminal conduct met beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction of all counts affirmed).