United States v. James

200 F. App'x 304
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 13, 2006
Docket05-60287
StatusUnpublished

This text of 200 F. App'x 304 (United States v. James) 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. James, 200 F. App'x 304 (5th Cir. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Morris James was convicted of twenty-three counts of mail fraud, violating 18 U.S.C. § 1341. He raises several issues on appeal. The court has carefully considered appellant’s position in light of the briefs, oral arguments, and pertinent portions of the record. We conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate specific intent to defraud and thus to sustain James’s convictions. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying James’s request for subpoenas or an investigator because James failed to make the requisite showing of necessity at trial, and has not demonstrated to this court that the district court’s ruling was prejudicial to his defense. No Batson violation was present in the Government’s use of peremptory challenges. Additionally, the district court did not err in its instruction to the jury concerning a matter of tax law. Finally, we hold that the district court’s admission of evidence at trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause. The district court judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

Related

Frauds and swindles
18 U.S.C. § 1341

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 F. App'x 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-james-ca5-2006.