IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40346
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRED ROBINSON; CLARENCE ROBINSON,
Defendants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:94-CR-40-2
- - - - - - - - - -
November 22, 1996
Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clarence and Fred Robinson appeal their convictions. They
argue that, in the light of Bailey v. United States, 116 S. Ct.
501 (1995), there was insufficient evidence to support their
convictions and that jury instructions were improper. Fred
argues: (1) the district court erred by increasing his offense
level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a); (2) his statements to sheriff’s
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-40346
-2-
deputies were involuntary and improperly admitted; and (3) the
district court abused its discretion by denying a jury
instruction regarding the voluntariness of the statements.
We discern no error arising under Bailey. United States v.
Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.
denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995); United States v. Fike, 82 F.3d
1315, 1328 (5th Cir. 1996), petition for cert. filed, July 29,
1996 (No. 96-5403); United States v. Casto, 889 F.2d 562, 566
(5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1092 (1990). The record
reveals that Fred was appropriately assessed an enhancement for
leading and organizing his brother's escape from jail and that
Fred's statements to deputies were voluntary. United States v.
Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 932-33 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct.
54 (1995); United States v. Broussard, 80 F.3d 1025, 1033 (5th
Cir. 1996). Because the statements were voluntary and Fred
proffered no evidence to support his contention to the contrary,
the denial of the proffered instruction was not an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Sellers, 926 F.2d 410, 414 (5th
Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.