USA vs. Wade (5th Cir. 1999)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (November 17, 1999)

Docket number: 99-10128

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/usa-vs-wade-19984913
Id. vLex: VLEX-19984913

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John M. Clements, Defendant-Appellant., 73 F.3d 1330 (5th Cir. 1996)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shannon Blake Triplett, Defendant-Appellant., 922 F.2d 1174 (5th Cir. 1991)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nelson Bell, Defendant-Appellant., 678 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1982)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10128

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HORACE T. WADE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:98-CR-283-2-D

November 10, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Horace T. Wade was convicted of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, two counts of aiding and abetting possession of stolen mail, and one count of possession of unauthorized access devices. On appeal, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the statements of his coconspirator under FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(E) and that the evidence was insufficient to uphold his conspiracy conviction. We have reviewed the briefs and the record and hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence. See United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1334 (5th Cir. 1996); Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S.

171, 176 (1987); United States v. Triplett, 922 F.2d 1174, 1181 (5th Cir. 1991). As to Wade's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en banc).

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.