IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10323
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SAMUEL EMEKA NWOKOLO,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:95-CR-159-D
- - - - - - - - - -
May 9, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samuel Emeka Nwokolo appeals his conviction following a jury
trial for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute
heroin and possession with the intent to distribute heroin.
Nwokolo cannot demonstrate clear error affecting his
substantial rights from the Government’s questions eliciting
answers Nwokolo alleges improperly injected ethnicity into the
trial in an attempt to inflame the jury, as he cannot show that
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-10323
- 2 -
any injection of ethnicity was so pronounced and persistent that
it permeated the entire atmosphere of his trial. See United
States v. Castillo, 77 F.3d 1480, 1497 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
117 S. Ct. 180, and cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 236, and cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 502 (1996); United States v. Calverley, 37
F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).
The district court did not err by admitting evidence that
was not alleged in the indictment. Nwokolo did not suffer
prejudice to his substantial rights as the evidence supported the
showing at trial of the existence of only a single conspiracy as
alleged in the indictment. See United States v. Jensen, 41 F.3d
946, 956 (5th Cir. 1994).
The record regarding the merits of Nwokolo’s ineffective
assistance-of-counsel claim is not fully developed. Accordingly,
this court declines to address it. See United States v. Higdon,
832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).
Nwokolo has failed to argue his issue that the district
court erred by denying his motion to sever. He has also failed
to independently argue his issues that he was denied his right to
confront the witnesses against him and that there was
insufficient evidence to support the verdict. He raised these
last issues in an attempt to demonstrate prejudice due to
ineffective assistance of counsel. Nwokolo has abandoned these
issues through his failure to adequately argue them.
Accordingly, this court declines to address them. See United
No. 96-10323
- 3 -
States v. Valdiosera-Godinez, 932 F.2d 1093, 1099 (5th Cir.
1991).
AFFIRMED.