United States v. Hicks

No. 99-20527
-1-
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-20527
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MAE JUNE HICKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-195-1
- - - - - - - - - -
May 2, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mae June Hicks appeals her jury convictions for conspiracy
to commit money laundering, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The
record is not adequately developed in this direct criminal appeal
for this court to review Hicks’ ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. Accordingly, we decline to consider this claim without
prejudice to Hicks’ right to raise the claim in a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. See United States v. Rivas, 157 F.3d 364, 369
(5th Cir. 1998). We discern no plain error in the district
court’s failure to order sua sponte the production of a summary

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-20527
-2-
report prepared by an unidentified federal agent who had
interviewed Hicks’ coconspirator. The district court did not
abuse its discretion in its handling of Hicks’ cross-examination
of her coconspirator. See United States v. Alexius, 76 F.3d 642,
644 (5th Cir. 1996). Finally, the prosecutor’s comments during
closing do not cast serious doubt on the correctness of the
jury’s verdict in light of the overwhelming evidence of Hicks’
guilt and the court’s curative instruction to the jury. See
United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d 272, 299 (5th Cir. 1999), cert.
denied, 120 S. Ct. 333, 514, 600 (1999), and 120 S. Ct. 814
(2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --