United States v. Grant ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 00-41053
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ASTLEY ANTHONY GRANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-00-CR-114-1
- - - - - - - - - -
December 6, 2001
Before JOLLY, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Astley Anthony Grant appeals his conviction for possession
with intent to distribute more than 1000 kilograms of marijuana.
Grant contends that 1) the district court plainly erred in
admitting evidence that he had provided false statements
regarding his identity and citizenship; 2) the district court
erroneously admitted hearsay evidence; 3) the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction; and 4) the district court
plainly erred in admitting into evidence his preliminary hearing
testimony.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-41053
-2-
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convinces us that no reversible error was committed. The trial
court’s admission of evidence concerning Grant’s false statements
to authorities does not constitute plain error. See United
States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en
banc). With respect to Grant’s contention that the trial court
erroneously admitted hearsay testimony, the complained-of out-of-
court statements were not offered to prove the truth of the
matter asserted; thus, their admission was not an abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Clements, 73 F.3d 1330, 1334
(5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Carillo, 20 F.3d 617, 619 (5th
Cir. 1994). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government and taking all reasonable inferences therefrom, a
reasonable jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that
Grant knew the trailer contained marijuana. See United States v.
Garcia-Flores, 246 F.3d 451, 454 (5th Cir. 2001). Finally, by
agreeing that his preliminary-hearing testimony was admissible at
trial, Grant has waived his right to raise this issue. See
United States v. Reveles, 190 F.3d 678, 683 (5th Cir. 1999).
AFFIRMED.