Filed: Jul. 16, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-20607 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LINDA HUBBLE, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 95-CR-198 - - - - - - - - - - July 10, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-appellant Linda Hubble appeals her convictions, following a nonjury trial, for utte
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 96-20607 Summary Calendar _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus LINDA HUBBLE, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 95-CR-198 - - - - - - - - - - July 10, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Defendant-appellant Linda Hubble appeals her convictions, following a nonjury trial, for utter..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-20607
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LINDA HUBBLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 95-CR-198
- - - - - - - - - -
July 10, 1997
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-appellant Linda Hubble appeals her convictions,
following a nonjury trial, for uttering counterfeit currency and
dealing in counterfeit currency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 472
and 473. Hubble’s contention that the district court, in a bench
trial, was unauthorized to make factual findings as to her
entrapment defense is without legal foundation. Cf. United
States v. Doe,
487 F.2d 892, 893 (5th Cir. 1973) (implicitly
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-20607
-2-
approving of trial court’s resolution of entrapment issues in
nonjury trial). Hubble’s assertion that her waiver of her right
to a jury trial was not voluntarily and intelligently given is
controverted by her written waiver of such right and her answers
to the court’s questions before signing the waiver form. See
United States v. Mendez,
102 F.2d 126, 129 (5th Cir. 1996).
Hubble’s contention that her trial attorney performed
ineffectively by recommending that she agree to a bench trial is
meritless. See Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687
(1984).
AFFIRMED.