Filed: Feb. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 16, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-50041 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAYMOND MONTOYA MANCHA, SR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-03-CR-102-1 Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Raymond Montoya Mancha, Sr., appeals
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 16, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 04-50041 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RAYMOND MONTOYA MANCHA, SR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. MO-03-CR-102-1 Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Raymond Montoya Mancha, Sr., appeals ..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 16, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50041
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAYMOND MONTOYA MANCHA, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-03-CR-102-1
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raymond Montoya Mancha, Sr., appeals his conviction for
aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine within one thousand
feet of a school and conspiracy to distribute cocaine within one
thousand feet of a school. He contends only that evidence of his
two prior cocaine-related convictions should not have been admitted
because they were unduly prejudicial. The district court did not
abuse its discretion by concluding that the prejudicial value of
the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
unfair prejudice. See United States v. Beechum,
582 F.2d 898, 911
(5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2