United States v. Hicks

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 4, 2000
Docket99-20527
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Hicks (United States v. Hicks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Hicks, (5th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

No. 99-20527 -1-

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20527 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MAE JUNE HICKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-98-CR-195-1 - - - - - - - - - - May 2, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mae June Hicks appeals her jury convictions for conspiracy

to commit money laundering, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The

record is not adequately developed in this direct criminal appeal

for this court to review Hicks’ ineffective assistance of counsel

claim. Accordingly, we decline to consider this claim without

prejudice to Hicks’ right to raise the claim in a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Rivas, 157 F.3d 364, 369

(5th Cir. 1998). We discern no plain error in the district

court’s failure to order sua sponte the production of a summary

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 99-20527 -2-

report prepared by an unidentified federal agent who had

interviewed Hicks’ coconspirator. The district court did not

abuse its discretion in its handling of Hicks’ cross-examination

of her coconspirator. See United States v. Alexius, 76 F.3d 642,

644 (5th Cir. 1996). Finally, the prosecutor’s comments during

closing do not cast serious doubt on the correctness of the

jury’s verdict in light of the overwhelming evidence of Hicks’

guilt and the court’s curative instruction to the jury. See

United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d 272, 299 (5th Cir. 1999), cert.

denied, 120 S. Ct. 333, 514, 600 (1999), and 120 S. Ct. 814

(2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Morrow
177 F.3d 272 (Fifth Circuit, 1999)
United States v. Noreen Venise Alexius
76 F.3d 642 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Rivas
157 F.3d 364 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Hicks, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-hicks-ca5-2000.