United States v. Martin

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-31369
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PRENTISS MARTIN; JEAN PERKINS,
also known as L.J., also known as Lawrence Parker,
also known as Jermain Allen,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CR-395-3-L
--------------------
November 28, 2001
Before REAVLEY, DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Prentiss Martin and Jean Perkins (“Appellants”) appeal their
convictions for conspiracy to produce false identification
documents and transfer and use of identification documents in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1028.
The Appellants argue that the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial after two witnesses
testified regarding a computer disk that the Appellants contend
was previously suppressed by the district court. The Appellants
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-31369
-2-
also contend that the evidence was insufficient to establish the
interstate commerce element of 18 U.S.C. § 1028 (c)(3)(a).
This court reviews the district court’s denial of a motion
for mistrial for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693, 699 (5th Cir. 1992). The testimony
regarding the computer disk found in Kelia Carrie’s home was
admissible under the district court’s interpretation of its
previous suppression ruling. Even if the court’s suppression
ruling extended to the computer disk itself, there was
independent testimony regarding the disk and its contents from
the individual who sold the disk to the Appellants. See United
States v. Grosenheider, 200 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2000). Therefore,
given the overwhelming evidence against the Appellants, it is
unlikely that this testimony substantially impacted the jury’s
verdict. See Ramirez, 963 F.2d at 699.
The evidence presented at the Appellants’ trial was
sufficient to establish the interstate commerce element of 18
U.S.C. § 1028(c)(3)(A). See United States v. Villarreal, 253
F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2001).
For the foregoing reasons, the convictions of the Appellants
are AFFIRMED.