United States v. Longino

*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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60427
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
STANLEY LONGINO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CR-163-ALL
_______________________________________
November 1, 2001
Before POLITZ, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stanley Longino appeals his conviction for being a felon in possession of a
firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Longino asserts that: (1) in light of
testimony by a Government witness indicating that his prior felony conviction order
had been amended, the evidence was insufficient to show that he was a convicted

-- 1 of 2 --

1United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540 (5th Cir. 1998).
2Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993).
2
felon; and (2) the district court erred in overruling his objection to the introduction
of the prior felony conviction order on the ground that it had been amended.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government,1 the testimony
regarding the amended order indicated that Longino’s original order of conviction
was amended to reflect that he had earned probation by successfully completing the
Regimented Inmate Discipline Program. That testimony did not negate the value of
the original order as evidence that Longino had been convicted of a felony offense.
Accordingly, Longino’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit.
Longino has not briefed, and therefore has abandoned, his assertion that the
district court erred in overruling his objection to the introduction of the original
felony conviction order on the ground that it had been amended.2
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --