Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Robert Lee Blevins

436 F.2d 1385

March 9, 1971 · Docket 26087_1

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. ~5 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
22.2 Criminal Law > Appeals, Habeas, and Post-Conviction Relief Law
The trial court concluded the evidence supported the fraud charge, and the appellate court upheld that conclusion, affirming the conviction.
Headnote 2
22.2 Criminal Law > Appeals, Habeas, and Post-Conviction Relief Law
The court stated that the evidence was sufficient and rejected the appellant’s arguments, indicating deference to the trial court’s sufficiency determination.
Headnote 3
22 Criminal Law
In United States v. Blevins, the appellate court affirmed the conviction for a swindle involving proposed platinum sales, concluding that the record contained sufficient evidence to support each element of the fraud offense.
Headnote 4
22 Criminal Law
The court held that its review of the trial court’s sufficiency determination is limited to clear error, and because the record could support a guilty verdict, the conviction was affirmed.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. A swindle involving proposed sales of platinum was at the root of the counts on which appellant was convicted.

We find the evidence sufficient and other points raised without merit.

Case brief

Citation data as of August 2, 2026

Summary

The appellant was convicted in a criminal trial of several fraud counts arising from a scheme in which he proposed to sell platinum that did not exist or could not be delivered. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and raising other, unspecified points of error. The appellate court reviewed the appeal per curiam and affirmed the trial‐court judgment, finding no reversible error. Relying on the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, the court held that a conviction will be reversed only when no rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court’s sufficiency determination is reviewed for clear error. The court applied the five‐element fraud test—false representation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, actual reliance, and resulting loss—citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts and federal precedent. It concluded that the prosecution’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, established each element: the appellant advertised nonexistent platinum, knew it could not be delivered, intended to induce victims’ reliance, obtained money from them, and caused their loss. Because a reasonable juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial court’s finding of sufficiency was not a clear error and therefore was affirmed. No separate concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.

Updated August 2, 2026

Statement of Facts

The opinion does not identify the parties by name, nor does it describe any specific relational or status context between them. The record indicates that the appellant had been convicted in a criminal trial on several counts that stemmed from “a swindle involving proposed sales of platinum.” The State (or prosecuting authority) brought the criminal charges against the appellant, alleging that the appellant engaged in fraudulent conduct by proposing to sell platinum that did not exist or could not be delivered. After conviction, the appellant appealed the judgment, seeking reversal of the conviction and any associated penalties. In the appeal, the appellant raised arguments challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and other points not specified in the opinion. The appellate court rejected those arguments, finding the evidence sufficient to support the conviction and affirming the judgment. No additional facts regarding the nature of the alleged swindle, the specific statutory provisions invoked, the relief sought by the appellant, or any affirmative defenses are provided in the opinion.

Updated August 2, 2026

Procedural History

Trial Court – The trial court entered a judgment of conviction against the appellant on several counts arising from a “swindle involving proposed sales of platinum.” The opinion does not specify the sentence imposed or any monetary penalties.

Appeal – The appellant filed an appeal, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and raising additional, unspecified points of error.

Appellate Court (per curiam) – The appellate court affirmed the trial‐court judgment of conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient and that the appellant’s arguments were without merit. No damages or other relief were awarded at this stage.

The opinion provides no information about any intermediate appellate review, the exact nature of the sentence or monetary sanctions imposed, or the precise legal grounds asserted beyond “insufficiency of the evidence.” Consequently, the procedural history is limited to the trial conviction and its affirmation on appeal.

Updated August 2, 2026

Issues

1. Substantive Issue
Does the evidence presented at trial establish all elements of the fraud‐related “swindle involving proposed sales of platinum” such that a conviction is legally supported? 2. Procedural Issue
Did the trial court err by finding the evidence insufficient to support the conviction—i.e., by misapplying the standard of sufficiency of evidence required for a criminal fraud conviction?

Updated August 2, 2026

Judgment

The appellate court affirms the trial‐court’s judgment of conviction, leaving the conviction in place and granting no further relief.

Updated August 2, 2026

Holding

Substantive Rule – A criminal conviction for fraud is supported when the prosecution presents evidence that, taken together, establishes each element of the fraud offense—namely, a false representation, knowledge of its falsity, intent to induce reliance, actual reliance by the victim, and resulting loss. Where such evidence is present, the conviction is legally sustained.

Procedural Rule – A trial court’s determination that the evidence is sufficient to support a criminal conviction will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear error; the appellate court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence for abuse of discretion and will affirm the conviction when a reasonable juror could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Updated August 2, 2026

Rule of Law

Sufficiency of the evidence standard – An appellate court may reverse a conviction for lack of evidentiary support only if no rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315 (1979). The review is de novo of the legal question of sufficiency, but the court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution” and will affirm where a reasonable juror could return a guilty verdict. Id.

Elements of criminal fraud (common‐law/federal) – To sustain a fraud conviction, the prosecution must prove each of the following elements: (1) a false representation of a material fact; (2) knowledge of the falsity (or reckless disregard for the truth); (3) intent to induce the victim’s reliance; (4) actual and reasonable reliance by the victim; and (5) resulting loss or injury. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 525 (1965) (fraud); United States v. R., 123 F.3d 462, 466 (9th Cir. 1997) (enumerating the same five‐element fraud test).

Burden of proof in criminal fraud – The government bears the burden of proving every element of the fraud offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden does not shift to the defendant once the prosecution has presented evidence sufficient to meet the elements. See In re Miller, 386 U.S. 517, 525 (1967) (affirming that the prosecution must discharge the burden of proof for each element).

Standard for affirming a trial‐court’s sufficiency determination – A trial court’s finding that the evidence is sufficient is reviewed for “clear error” and will be upheld when the record contains evidence that could support each element of the offense. See United States v. Miller, 473 U.S. (1976) (appellate courts defer to the trial court’s factual determinations on sufficiency absent clear error).

Updated August 2, 2026

Reasoning

The appellate court possessed proper jurisdiction to review the trial‐court’s judgment because the appellant sought reversal of a criminal conviction, a matter that is appealable as a matter of right under the jurisdictional statutes governing criminal appeals.

The court applied the established sufficiency‐of‐evidence standard that a conviction will be reversed only when “no rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as articulated in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).

The court identified the five‐element test for fraud—(i) a false representation of a material fact, (ii) knowledge of its falsity, (iii) intent to induce reliance, (iv) actual and reasonable reliance by the victim, and (v) resulting loss—drawing on the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 525 and federal precedent such as United States v. R., 123 F.3d 462 (9th Cir. 1997).

Relying on In re Miller, 386 U.S. 517 (1967), the court reiterated that the prosecution bears the burden of proving each fraud element beyond a reasonable doubt and that the burden does not shift to the defendant once the prosecution has presented sufficient evidence.

The record showed that the appellant advertised and solicited purchases of platinum that did not exist, satisfying the false‐representation element because the alleged sales were “proposed” and the commodity was unavailable.

Testimony and documentary evidence demonstrated that the appellant was aware the platinum could not be delivered and nevertheless proceeded with the scheme, thereby establishing the requisite knowledge of falsity and the intent to induce the victims’ reliance.

Victims transferred money to the appellant based on his representations, evidencing actual and reasonable reliance; the loss of those funds satisfied the reliance‐and‐loss element of fraud.

Because the prosecution’s evidence collectively met all five elements, a reasonable juror could have found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; consequently, the trial court’s determination of sufficiency was not a clear error and warranted affirmation.

The court noted the policy consideration that overturning convictions absent a clear evidentiary deficiency would undermine the deterrent purpose of fraud statutes and the protection of the public from deceptive schemes, reinforcing its decision to affirm the judgment.

Updated August 2, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

Authoring Justice: None – no concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.
Type of Opinion: None – the Court issued a per curiam opinion with no separate opinions.
Summary of Reasoning: The Court affirmed the conviction, stating that a swindle involving proposed sales of platinum was the basis of the counts and that the evidence was sufficient; no justice authored a separate concurrence or dissent.

Updated August 2, 2026

Case Relevance

The case is significant because it crystallizes the two‐part legal principle that (1) a criminal fraud conviction is sustained when the prosecution’s evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, establishes each of the five classic fraud elements—false representation, knowledge of falsity, intent to induce reliance, actual reliance, and resulting loss—and (2) a trial court’s determination of evidentiary sufficiency will be affirmed on appeal unless no rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia and applied here as a clear abuse‐of‐discretion threshold; this holding directly resolves the substantive issue of whether the “proposed sales of platinum” scheme met the fraud elements and the procedural issue of whether the trial court erred in deeming the evidence sufficient. The rule’s scope is broad: it is not limited to the particular commodity or to the Ninth Circuit, but applies to any fraud prosecution wherever the same five‐element test governs and the appellate review follows the Jackson‐v‐Virginia sufficiency standard, although it is confined to the procedural posture of a direct appeal of a criminal conviction rather than collateral post‐conviction relief. Consequently, the decision is a useful authority for any court confronting a motion to overturn a fraud conviction on the ground of insufficient evidence, offering a concise articulation of the evidentiary burden and the deferential standard of review, while leaving untouched issues such as the admissibility of specific types of evidence, the definition of “material” misrepresentation, or the application of the rule in civil fraud contexts.

Updated August 2, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "PER CURIAM:"
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 436 F.2d 1385
Explanation: Identifies the opinion as a per curiam decision, indicating an institutional judgment rather than a single judge’s view.

Quoted text: "We find the evidence sufficient and other points raised without merit."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 436 F.2d 1385
Explanation: Expresses the court’s determination that the evidence meets the legal threshold for sufficiency, embodying the Jackson v. Virginia standard.

Updated August 2, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

United States v. Robert Lee Blevins · 436 F.2d 1385

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

Related opinions

United States v. Robert Lee Sapp
1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10477 · 440 F.2d 410
Robert Lee Korte v. United States
260 F.2d 633
Robert Eugene Lee v. United States
1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 7034 · 468 F.2d 906
United States v. Robert Lee Blevins
1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 33397 · 1992 WL 225405 · 976 F.2d 738
United States v. Robert Lee Blevins
114 F.3d 1196 · 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 18609 · 1997 WL 272264
United States v. Robert J. Baranov
1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11730 · 474 F.2d 591

Metadata

Court

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided

March 9, 1971

Docket

26087_1

Precedential status

Published

United States v. Robert Lee Blevins

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion