United States v. Shadden, 99-41484 (2000)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Number: 99-41484
Visitors: 36
Filed: Sep. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41484 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRIS DALE SHADDEN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-53-ALL - September 15, 2000 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Chris Dale Shadden challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for carjacking and using and carrying a
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41484 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRIS DALE SHADDEN, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-53-ALL - September 15, 2000 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Chris Dale Shadden challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for carjacking and using and carrying a ..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41484 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHRIS DALE SHADDEN, Defendant-Appellant. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:99-CR-53-ALL -------------------- September 15, 2000 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Chris Dale Shadden challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions for carjacking and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence. In particular, he contends that the Government failed to prove the “taking” element of the carjacking offense. We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the parties and find that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. AFFIRMED. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Source: CourtListener
