Filed: Jul. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20463 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROSA MARIA BENAVIDES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-35-25 - - - - - - - - - - July 1, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rosa Benavides appeals from her conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to d
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20463 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus ROSA MARIA BENAVIDES, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CR-35-25 - - - - - - - - - - July 1, 1999 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Rosa Benavides appeals from her conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to di..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20463
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROSA MARIA BENAVIDES,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CR-35-25
- - - - - - - - - -
July 1, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rosa Benavides appeals from her conviction for conspiracy
to possess with the intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. She argues that the evidence
was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict and that the
“reasonable notice” requirement of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) was
violated when the Government gave notice of its intent to
introduce evidence of Benavides’ prior drug conviction only one
day prior to the start of the trial. Our review of the record
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-20463
-2-
and of the arguments and authorities convinces us that no
reversible error was committed. The evidence was not
insufficient. See United States v. McCarty,
36 F.3d 1349, 1358
(5th Cir. 1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion
by admitting the Rule 404(b) evidence of Benavides’ prior
narcotics conviction. See United States v. Powers,
168 F.3d 741,
748 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.