Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01536/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01536-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. LaRue
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.F 1 LE 

United Stares Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirr:ui: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 12 1990 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MARK A. LARUE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-1536 

) (D.C. No. 87-30018-01) 

) ( D. Kan.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before TACHA, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant-appellant appeals 

The case is therefore ordered 

his criminal conviction. 

Defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury in 1987 for 

attempting to escape from the United States Penitentiary in 

Leavenworth, Kansas, for attempting to introduce contraband into 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1536 Document: 01019963040 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 1 
the prison that could be used as a weapon or to facilitate an 

escape, and for causing unmailable items to be sent through the 

United States mail with intent to kill or injure another. In 

February of 1988, a jury convicted defendant of the first two 

offenses and of the lesser included offense of causing unmailable 

items to be sent through the United States mail. 

Defendant raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether the 

district court erred in allowing evidence of an allegedly 

unrelated escape attempt to be introduced at trial; (2) whether 

the district court erred in failing to grant defendant's motion 

for preliminary determination of admissibility of evidence; and 

(3) whether the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to 

support the jury's verdict. 

We have reviewed the parties' briefs, the record on appeal, 

and the pertinent law and we find no reversible error. Therefore, 

the judgment of the United State District Court for the District 

of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1536 Document: 01019963040 Date Filed: 02/12/1990 Page: 2