United States v. Hickson

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40060
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CRAIG SCOTT HICKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-21-ALL
--------------------
August 25, 1999
Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Craig Hickson appeals his convictions for being a felon in
possession of a firearm and selling a stolen firearm. Hickson
argues that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions; (2) the district court violated his due process rights
by warning his attorney to avoid references to the jury’s racial
makeup; (3) the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights
by impaneling a juror that resided outside the Eastern District of
Texas; (4) the district court committed reversible error by
depriving him of a substantial and significant portion of the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-40060
-2-
record; and (5) the district court violated his Sixth Amendment
rights when it erroneously denied his motion to call the prosecutor
as a witness.
Because Hickson did not move for judgment of acquittal, this
court’s review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to
determining whether there was a manifest miscarriage of justice.
See United States v. Johnson, 87 F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996). We
have reviewed the arguments and the appellate record and conclude
that no manifest miscarriage of justice occurred. See United
States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
119 S. Ct. 1795 (1999); United States v. Dixon, 132 F.3d 192, 200
(5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1581 (1998).
This court also concludes that (1) the district court properly
warned Hickson’s trial counsel about his opening remarks and did
not so favor the prosecution that it appeared to predispose the
jury toward a finding of guilt, see Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d
1453, 1459 (5th Cir. 1992); (2) Hickson has failed to show that the
district court impaneled a juror that resided outside the Eastern
District of Texas; (3) Hickson has failed to show that the district
court deprived him of a substantial and significant portion of the
record, see United States v. Aubin, 87 F.3d 141, 149 (5th Cir.
1996); and (4) Hickson has failed to show that the district court
abused its discretion by denying his motion to call the prosecutor
as a witness, see United States v. Bates, 600 F.2d 505, 511 (5th
Cir. 1979); United States v. Crockett, 506 F.2d 759, 760 (5th Cir.
1975).
AFFIRMED.