United States v. Barron ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-40357
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    versus
    JUAN JESUS BARRON,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. B-00-CR-425-3
    - - - - - - - - - -
    October 17, 2001
    Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Juan Jesus Barron appeals from his jury-verdict conviction
    and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
    marijuana and possession with intent to distribute marijuana.    He
    argues that: (1) the district court erred by denying his request
    for a jury instruction regarding entrapment; (2) the district
    court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial;
    and (3) the district court erred by declining to decrease his
    offense level for acceptance of responsibility.
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40357
    -2-
    The record indicates that Barron failed to make the
    requisite showing to warrant a jury instruction for entrapment.
    See United States v. Bradfield, 
    113 F.3d 515
    , 521 (5th Cir.
    1997).   The district court did not abuse its discretion by
    denying Barron’s motion for a mistrial because any error based on
    the admission of stale convictions was rendered harmless by the
    curative jury instruction and the overwhelming evidence of
    Barron’s guilt.    See United States v. Sotelo, 
    97 F.3d 782
    , 797-98
    (5th Cir. 1996).   Furthermore, the record shows that Barron was
    not entitled to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility.
    See United States v. Brace, 
    145 F.3d 247
    , 264-65 (5th Cir. 1998).
    Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-40357

Filed Date: 10/17/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021