Court Opinion

ID: 11803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:07:54+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:40.620216
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                           No. 96-40415
                         Summary Calendar

     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                         Plaintiff-Appellee,

     v.

     JOHN R. NEWMAN, also known as Dick Newman and
     VIRGINIA L. NEWMAN, also know as Jenny Newman,

                                         Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Texas
                       USDC No. 4:95-CR-18-1
_________________________________________________________________
                           April 16, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     John R. Newman and Virginia L. Newman appeal their

convictions and sentences for bankruptcy fraud.   The district

court did not err by refusing to dismiss the indictment for an

alleged misstatement of law made to the grand jury as the Newmans

have not shown that they were prejudiced by the misstatement.

See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 254

     *
        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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
(1988); United States. v. McKenzie, 678 F.2d 629, 634 (5th Cir.

1982).   The district court did not abuse its discretion in

excluding, as hearsay, testimony by James Moon regarding what the

Newmans had told him of how they had determined the value of

their jewelry.   United States v. Liu, 960 F.2d 449, 452 (5th Cir.

1992).   The district court did not commit clear error in

determining the amount of loss under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b).     United

States v. Wimbish, 980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1992).

     AFFIRMED.

                                 2