United States v. Watson ( 1997 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 96-30471
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMY WATSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 95-CR-240“D”
- - - - - - - - - -
July 3, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmy Watson was found guilty of guilty of robbery of
personal property belonging to the United States and aiding and
abetting (count one); attempting to murder a federal law
enforcement officer and aiding and abetting (count two), and
using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of
violence and aiding and abetting (count three). On appeal, he
argues that the Government improperly used its peremptory
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-30471
-2-
challenges to strike prospective jurors solely because of their
race in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the
evidence was insufficient to convict him of the use of a firearm
during a crime of violence and aiding and abetting, the district
court erred by denying his motion to suppress his confession, the
district court abused its discretion by not excluding certain
portions of the confession, and the district court’s handling of
an error in the written jury instructions constitutes reversible
error.
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The
district court did not err in rejecting the Batson challenge.
See United States v. Perkins, 105 F.3d 976, 978-79 (5th Cir.
1997). The evidence was sufficient. See United States v. Alix,
86 F.3d 429, 435-36 (5th Cir. 1996). The denial of the
suppression motion was not erroneous. See United States v.
Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1337 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.
346 (1994). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
admitting the entire confession. See United States v. Broussard,
80 F.3d 1025, 1039 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 264
(1996). Finally, the court properly instructed the jury and
corrected the error contained in the written instructions before
the jury began deliberating. See United States v Brown, 49 F.3d
135, 137 (5th Cir. 1995)
AFFIRMED.