Filed: Jul. 13, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40754 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SERGIO CELADA-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-99-CR-1096-3 - July 11, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Sergio Celada-Silva (“Celada”) was convicted of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-40754 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus SERGIO CELADA-AVILA, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-99-CR-1096-3 - July 11, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Sergio Celada-Silva (“Celada”) was convicted of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h),..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40754
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SERGIO CELADA-AVILA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-99-CR-1096-3
--------------------
July 11, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Sergio Celada-Silva (“Celada”) was convicted of conspiracy to
launder monetary instruments, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h),
and aiding and abetting the laundering of monetary instruments, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1956(a)(1)(A)(i). He argues that
insufficient evidence existed to support his convictions. Celada
also argues that the district court erred by failing to admit
hearsay under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
We conclude that sufficient evidence existed to support
Celada’s convictions. See United States v. Garcia Abrego, 141 F.3d
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-40754
-2-
142, 160-62 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Gallo,
927 F.2d 815,
822 (5th Cir. 1991). We also conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion by not admitting hearsay evidence under
Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1). See United States v. Atkins,
618 F.2d
366, 373 (5th Cir. 1980). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.