UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 96-31224
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAYMOND HOLLOWAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(95-CR-338-E)
November 10, 1997
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raymond Holloway appeals his conviction for aiding and
abetting an illegal gambling business (18 U.S.C. § 1951) and
obstructing the enforcement of Louisiana criminal law (18 U.S.C. §
1511). The activities which led to Holloway’s indictment and
conviction occurred while he was the Louisiana Alcohol Beverage
Control (ABC) Commissioner. Holloway claimed at trial that his
actions were part of a covert operation that he ran without
anyone’s knowledge because he feared that his ABC agents were “on
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
the take.” Following a three day trial, the jury convicted
Holloway on the two counts set out above and acquitted him on a
third count (extortion).
Holloway claims that the court erred in failing to instruct
the jury on the defense of justification because it was the crux of
his defense at trial. In light of the fact that Holloway failed to
request any instruction on justification, we review his claim for
plain error. See FED. R. CRIM P. 52(b); United States v. Olano, 507
U.S. 725, 736 113 S. Ct. 1770, 1779, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1992). We
will reverse only if the error affects the substantial rights of
the defendant and the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
the judicial proceedings. See id.
We find no such error here. The district court correctly
instructed the jury on the charges of aiding and abetting and the
obstruction of justice. After hearing all of the evidence, the
jury found that Holloway intentionally and willfully aided in the
violation of Louisiana gaming laws. The jury also found that
Holloway intentionally and knowingly obstructed the enforcement of
Louisiana gaming laws. In finding Holloway guilty, the jury
rejected his theory of the case, namely that he was conducting a
secret operation. Consequently, it was not plain error for the
district court to fail to give an instruction on justification.
Holloway’s remaining arguments on appeal are similarly without
merit.
AFFIRMED.