IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-10750
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JEFFERY H. REYNOLDS, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:96-CR-003-H)
- - - - - - - - - -
July 8, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jeffery H. Reynolds, III, federal prisoner # 61306080,
appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud,
count two of a 20-count superseding indictment. He argues that
the district court erred in denying his request for a hearing
pursuant to Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), and
in calculating the amount of intended loss used to determine his
offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1(b)(1)(R).
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convince us that no reversible error was committed. Under the
facts and circumstances of this case, the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Reynolds’ request for a Kastigar
hearing. We recognize that testimony obtained under a grant of
act-of-production immunity could not be used directly or
derivatively against Reynolds as the custodian of the corporate
documents. See Braswell v. United States, 487 U.S. 99, 117
(1988). Reynolds’ production of the subpoenaed corporate
documents, however, did not constitute testimonial and self-
incriminating evidence that the documents existed. See Fisher v.
United States, 425 U.S. 391, 410 (1976). The subpoenaed
documents were the kind usually associated with a corporation and
their existence was not at issue. Id. at 411-12.
Further, the district court’s finding that the amount of
intended loss was the total coverage of the policies written is
not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Krenning, 93 F.3d
1257, 1269 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court employed a
reasonable methodology and made a reasonable determination of the
loss. Id.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Reynolds’ pro se motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is
DENIED. See Myers v. Johnson, 76 F.3d 1330, 1335 (5th Cir.
1996).
2