IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-60280
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
QUINCY MOODY,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:95-CR-43-LN
- - - - - - - - - -
March 20, 1997
Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Quincy Moody appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
interfere with commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951. Moody first argues that the district court erred by
denying a motion to compel discovery of a recording device worn
by Moody’s coconspirator in a failed attempt to record their
conversations. Because introduction of the device would not have
significantly altered the quantum of proof in Moody’s favor,
there was no abuse of discretion in the denial of the discovery
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-60280
- 2 -
motion. See United States v. Reeves, 892 F.2d 1223, 1227 (5th
Cir. 1990).
Moody also argues that the district court erred by admitting
into evidence hearsay conversations before the Government had
proved the existence of the conspiracy. He argues that neither
the challenged conversations, nor conversations which occurred
after the arrest of his coconspirator, could be used in
“connecting-up” the conspiracy. This argument is without merit
because Moody’s own statements were admissible as evidence
connecting-up the conspiracy. See United States v. Flores, 63
F.3d 1342, 1358 (5th Cir. 1995)(defendant’s statements admissible
as admissions of party-opponent), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 87
(1996).
Regarding his newly-raised assertion that the district court
erred by admitting into evidence his “extrajudicial admission,”
there is no requirement that the introduction of an admission
against interest be accompanied by corroborating evidence. Thus,
there was no error, plain or otherwise, in the admission of the
incident report. See United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160-
162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266
(1995). Insofar as Moody challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence supporting his conviction, we conclude that there was
evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find beyond a
reasonable doubt that Moody voluntarily joined the conspiracy.
See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en
banc), aff'd, 462 U.S. 356 (1983).
AFFIRMED.