Court Opinion

ID: 11807
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:07:56+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:50.237770
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                        __________________

                           No. 96-40498
                         Summary Calendar
                        __________________

     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                     Plaintiff-Appellee,

     v.

     ISAUL SALINAS, JR.,

                                     Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. M-95-CR-163-02
_________________________________________________________________
                           April 11, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Isaul Salinas Jr., appeals his convictions for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute approximately seven kilograms

of cocaine and attempted possession with intent to distribute

approximately seven kilograms of cocaine.    Salinas argues that

the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions.    He

also contends, for the first time on appeal, that the district

judge’s questioning of him deprived him of a fair trial.    Our

     *
        Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinces

us that no reversible error was committed.    The evidence was

sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Salinas guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt.    See United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d 429, 435-36

(5th Cir. 1996).    Nor did the district judge plainly err by

questioning Salinas during trial.     See United States v. Mizell,

88 F.3d 288, 296-97 (5th Cir. 1996).

     AFFIRMED.

                                  2