Filed: Apr. 20, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-10248 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MAHMMOUD SABRI ARNAOUT, also known as Pete Arnaout, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (4:94-CR-98-A) April 17, 1998 Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mahmmoud Sabri Arnaout, also known as Pete Arnaout, appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit w
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-10248 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MAHMMOUD SABRI ARNAOUT, also known as Pete Arnaout, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (4:94-CR-98-A) April 17, 1998 Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mahmmoud Sabri Arnaout, also known as Pete Arnaout, appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit wi..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 97-10248 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus MAHMMOUD SABRI ARNAOUT, also known as Pete Arnaout, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (4:94-CR-98-A) April 17, 1998 Before JOHNSON, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mahmmoud Sabri Arnaout, also known as Pete Arnaout, appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit wire fraud. He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. Because Arnaout renewed his motion for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, we review the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether “a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Lopez, 74 * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th CIR.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. F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). After a careful review of the record and the controlling authorities, we hold that sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2
