Filed: Dec. 26, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 00-20133 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS JAMES AUTHOR HARRIS, II, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston H-99-CR-539-ALL December 22, 2000 Before JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI*, Judge. PER CURIAM:** In this direct, criminal appeal, Harris challenges his conviction and sentence and raises the following points of error: 1. The district
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 00-20133 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS JAMES AUTHOR HARRIS, II, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston H-99-CR-539-ALL December 22, 2000 Before JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI*, Judge. PER CURIAM:** In this direct, criminal appeal, Harris challenges his conviction and sentence and raises the following points of error: 1. The district c..
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 00-20133 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, VERSUS JAMES AUTHOR HARRIS, II, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas, Houston H-99-CR-539-ALL December 22, 2000 Before JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI*, Judge. PER CURIAM:** In this direct, criminal appeal, Harris challenges his conviction and sentence and raises the following points of error: 1. The district court abused its discretion by failing to * Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. ** 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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. adopt Harris’s proposed jury instruction on unanimity; 2. The evidence was insufficient to support a conviction on the twelve offenses charged; 3. The indictment was prejudicial because it either contained duplicitous charges or disjunctive charges; and 4. The district court erred in its loss calculations which requires resentencing. After a careful review of the record and considering the briefs and arguments of counsel, we are satisfied that the district court committed no reversible error. AFFIRMED. 2
