Filed: Nov. 07, 1995
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-50194 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus AMOS ELLIOTT, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 94-CR-171-1 - - - - - - - - - - November 30, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Amos Elliott, Jr., has appealed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions f
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 95-50194 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus AMOS ELLIOTT, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 94-CR-171-1 - - - - - - - - - - November 30, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Amos Elliott, Jr., has appealed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions fo..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________ No. 95-50194 Summary Calendar __________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus AMOS ELLIOTT, JR., Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 94-CR-171-1 - - - - - - - - - - November 30, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Amos Elliott, Jr., has appealed the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for theft of government money and money laundering. Elliott argues that his convictions should be reversed because there is insufficient evidence that he stole money from the Government. We have reviewed the briefs and the record and discern no reversible error. AFFIRMED. * Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.
