Filed: Apr. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40415 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN R. NEWMAN, also known as Dick Newman and VIRGINIA L. NEWMAN, also know as Jenny Newman, Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-18-1 _ April 16, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John R. Newman and Virginia L. Newman appeal their convictions a
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-40415 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOHN R. NEWMAN, also known as Dick Newman and VIRGINIA L. NEWMAN, also know as Jenny Newman, Defendants-Appellants. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CR-18-1 _ April 16, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John R. Newman and Virginia L. Newman appeal their convictions an..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40415
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN R. NEWMAN, also known as Dick Newman and
VIRGINIA L. NEWMAN, also know as Jenny Newman,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CR-18-1
_________________________________________________________________
April 16, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John R. Newman and Virginia L. Newman appeal their
convictions and sentences for bankruptcy fraud. The district
court did not err by refusing to dismiss the indictment for an
alleged misstatement of law made to the grand jury as the Newmans
have not shown that they were prejudiced by the misstatement.
See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States,
487 U.S. 250, 254
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
(1988); United States. v. McKenzie,
678 F.2d 629, 634 (5th Cir.
1982). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding, as hearsay, testimony by James Moon regarding what the
Newmans had told him of how they had determined the value of
their jewelry. United States v. Liu,
960 F.2d 449, 452 (5th Cir.
1992). The district court did not commit clear error in
determining the amount of loss under U.S.S.G. ยง 2F1.1(b). United
States v. Wimbish,
980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
2