United States v. Stovall ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10486
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRENSON STOVALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:99-CR-175-1-P)
--------------------
March 26, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Brenson Stovall was convicted of four
counts of robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) & (b), four counts of
using and carrying a firearm during the robberies, and four counts
of brandishing a firearm during the robberies. Stovall argues that
(1) his post-arrest statements to a federal agent were involuntary
in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), (2) the
government failed to prove jurisdiction and venue, (3) the
government failed to prove the losses associated with the robberies
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
as alleged in the indictment, and (4) the verdict of not guilty for
one of the robbery counts was inconsistent with the guilty verdict
on the other counts.
None of Stovall’s arguments have merit. Stovall voluntarily
and knowingly waived his rights before talking to federal agents.
See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 577 (1987); Barnes v.
Johnson, 160 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1998). There was sufficient
evidence establishing venue and territorial jurisdiction. See
United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 1980); United
States v. Turner, 586 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1978). There was
trial evidence proving the losses as alleged in the indictment.
The verdict was not inconsistent, and, even if it were, that would
not warrant reversal. United States v. Straach, 987 F.2d 232, 240-
41 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.
2