Filed: Apr. 24, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-50620 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DOUGLAS MILANTONI, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-95-CR-352-6 - - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Douglas Milantoni appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a bill of particu
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 96-50620 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DOUGLAS MILANTONI, Defendant-Appellee. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-95-CR-352-6 - - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1997 Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Douglas Milantoni appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a bill of particul..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-50620
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOUGLAS MILANTONI,
Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-95-CR-352-6
- - - - - - - - - -
April 16, 1997
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Douglas Milantoni appeals the district court’s denial of his
motion for a bill of particulars based upon alleged lack of
specificity in the indictment, and his motion for new trial based
on new evidence of a prior conviction of one of the Government’s
witnesses. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying a bill of particulars because Milantoni has not shown
actual surprise at trial due to a lack of a bill of particulars.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-50620
- 2 -
See United States v. Martino,
648 F.2d 367, 383 (5th Cir. 1981).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
the motion for new trial because the new evidence of an
undisclosed prior conviction of a Government witness was
cumulative and there is no reasonable probability that it would
have produced a different result. United States v. Sotelo,
97
F.3d 782, 792 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.