Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emmanuel HOBSON, also known as Emmauel Hobson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-14
Citations: 102 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 03-60758
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emmanuel HOBSON, also known as Emmauel Hobson, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 430–430

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Emmanuel HOBSON, also known as Emmauel Hobson, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-60758.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided July 14, 2004.
Richard Terrell Starrett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Darren John LaMarca, Law Office of Darren J LaMarca, Clinton, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and WIENER and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Hobson appeals from his jury-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Hobson argues that the district court reversibly erred in refusing to grant his motion for a mistrial. When questioned on direct examination, the arresting officer mentioned that Hob-son had previously been in jail for house burglary. Hobson argues that this testimony violated his rights under Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997), necessitating a mistrial. The denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Coveney, 995 F.2d 578, 584 (5th Cir.1993).
Juries are presumed to follow the trial court's instructions. See Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 540-41, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993). The mention of the nature of Hobson's prior conviction was rendered harmless by the district court's curative instructions. See United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 412 n. 11 (5th Cir.1998). The judgment of the district court is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.