United States v. Mason ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 97-40020
    Conference Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    ROSHON LEE MASON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. G-96-CR-4-1
    - - - - - - - - - -
    October 21, 1997
    Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Roshon Lee Mason appeals his jury conviction for possession
    with intent to distribute crack cocaine.    He argues that the
    district court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence of
    marihuana found in the apartment, testimony that a .22 caliber
    rifle was found in the apartment, and an envelope with a return
    address of a Louisiana prison.
    Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
    convinces us that the district court did not abuse its
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-40020
    -2-
    discretion.    United States v. Hays, 
    872 F.2d 582
    , 587 (5th Cir.
    1989).   With respect to the rifle, the district court sustained
    Mason’s objection to the rifle and prohibited any reference to
    it.   Accordingly, that issue is without merit.   With respect to
    both the marihuana and the envelope, the district court gave a
    prompt and thorough limiting instruction as to those items.
    Juries are presumed to follow the instructions of the court.     See
    Zafiro v. United States, 
    506 U.S. 534
    , 540-41 (1993); United
    States v. Torres, 
    114 F.3d 520
    , 526 (5th Cir. 1997), cert.
    denied, 
    1997 WL 562154
     (U.S. Oct. 14, 1997).   The court’s
    instruction adequately neutralized any potential prejudice from
    this evidence.   Accordingly, the judgment of the district court
    is AFFIRMED.