USA v. Wendell Holli
Filing
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [11-60606 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: JWE , Judge: JEG Mandate pull date is 08/22/2012 for Appellant Wendell Hollis [11-60606]
Case: 11-60606
Document: 00511941533
Page: 1
Date Filed: 08/01/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 11-60606
Summary Calendar
August 1, 2012
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
WENDELL W. HOLLIS,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:11-CR-9-1
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Wendell W. Hollis appeals his jury trial conviction
for theft of government funds, for which he was sentenced to 16 months in prison
and three years of supervised release. The record is insufficiently developed to
allow consideration at this time of Hollis’s claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006).
Hollis contends that the district court abused its discretion by admitting,
over his objection, a government witness’s testimony that she was assaulted and
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-60606
Document: 00511941533
Page: 2
Date Filed: 08/01/2012
No. 11-60606
intimidated by Hollis’s sister and by failing to weigh the probative value of this
testimony against its prejudicial effect, as required by Federal Rule of Evidence
403. The record belies Hollis’s argument that the district court failed to conduct
the balancing required by Rule 403. Hollis has not shown that the Government’s
primary purpose in calling this witness was to elicit otherwise impermissible
evidence that Hollis’s sister assaulted and intimidated that witness. Based on
the record, the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in admitting this
evidence. See United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2010);
United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 760 (5th Cir. 2008).
Hollis also claims that the district court erred in denying his post-trial
motion for a new trial. In light of Hollis’s sparse assertions in his new trial
motion and of the conclusion above that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in admitting the witness’s intimidation testimony, Hollis has not
shown that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying his motion
for a new trial. See United States v. Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d 600, 605 (5th
Cir. 2008).
Because Hollis preserved his insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim as to his
occupancy of the property on which his allegedly false FEMA claims were based
by making several motions for judgment of acquittal, we review that claim de
novo. United States v. Moreland, 665 F.3d 137, 148 (5th Cir. 2011). This review,
however, “does not include a review of the weight of the evidence or of the
credibility of the witnesses.” United States v. Anderson, 559 F.3d 348, 353 (5th
Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Viewed in the light
most favorable to the verdict, see id., this evidence supports a finding beyond a
reasonable doubt that Hollis did not occupy the lot in question at the time of
Hurricane Katrina.
AFFIRMED.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?