United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 23-50218 ____________ FILED September 19, 2024 United States of America, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus Josephine Casandra Perez-Gorda,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:17-CR-845-2 ______________________________ Before Ho, Duncan, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. James C. Ho, Circuit Judge: Josephine Perez-Gorda appeals her federal convictions for fraud. Her husband Justin suffered a brain injury while on duty abroad with the United States Army. Following his return to the United States, he and Perez-Gorda repeatedly told providers and caregivers at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that he could not walk or take care of himself. Based on these representations, the couple received government benefits—including a new home and new car. Perez-Gorda also received a caregiver stipend. But in fact, Justin was more mobile and self-sufficient than he and Perez-Gorda had represented. They were charged with fraud and conspiracy. Case: 23-50218 Document: 115-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/19/2024

No. 23-50218

After Justin’s death in 2022, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Perez-Gorda. The grand jury indicted Perez-Gorda on fourteen counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343; mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341; health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347; conspiracy to commit health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349; and various associated aiding and abetting offenses under 18 U.S.C. § 2. A jury voted to convict her on all counts. Following the jury verdicts, the district court sentenced Perez- Gorda to forty-six months in prison. In this appeal, Perez-Gorda correctly points out that the jury instructions on wire and mail fraud in her trial have been rendered erroneous by intervening circuit precedent. But she did not object to the instructions at trial, and we see no reasonable possibility that a jury would have acquitted under the proper instructions. Her other challenges are unavailing as well. We accordingly affirm. I. Perez-Gorda primarily challenges the district court’s instructions to the jury. A conviction for wire fraud or mail fraud requires a showing that the defendant acted with “specific intent to defraud.” United States v. Hoffman, 901 F.3d 523, 545 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Kuhrt, 788 F.3d 403, 413–14 (5th Cir. 2015) and United States v. Brooks, 681 F.3d 678, 700 (5th Cir. 2012)); 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343. During Perez-Gorda’s trial, the district court instructed the jury that a “specific intent to defraud” means “a conscious, knowing intent to deceive or cheat someone.” That instruction was consistent with pattern instructions in effect at the time of the trial. After Perez-Gorda’s conviction, and while this appeal was pending, the Fifth Circuit clarified that specific intent in this context requires an intent to both “deceive and cheat” someone. United States v. Greenlaw, 84 F.4th 325, 351 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Miller, 953 F.3d 1095, 1103