IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10591
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GLENN HOWARD COTTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-114-A(1)
- - - - - - - - - -
March 11, 1998
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Glenn Howard Cotton appeals his jury trial conviction for
six counts of interference with interstate commerce through
robbery and six counts of use of a firearm in connection with a
crime of violence. The district court did not err in refusing to
allow hearsay evidence of a codefendant’s statement regarding the
guns used in the robbery. See Williamson v. United States, 512
U.S. 594, 599-600 (1994). The court did not err in allowing
Holland to testify that the robbery affected interstate commerce.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-10591
-2-
Fed. R. Evid. 701, 702, 704(a). The district court applied the
correct standard to determine whether the robberies affected
interstate commerce, and the evidence was sufficient for
conviction under that standard. See United States v. Hebert, 131
F.3d 514, 520-21 (5th Cir. 1997). The evidence was also
sufficient, when all inferences are drawn in favor of the
verdict, to convict for each count of using a firearm in relation
to a crime of violence. See United States v. Martinez, 975 F.2d
159, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992). Cotton’s argument that the Hobbs
Act is unconstitutional is foreclosed by this court’s decision in
United States v. Robinson, 119 F.3d 1205, 1212-16 (5th Cir.
1997), petition for cert. filed, No. 97-7566 (Nov 06, 1997).
Cotton’s argument that his conviction on the firearm offenses
violates the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution is
precluded by United States v. Parker, 73 F.3d 48, 55 (5th Cir.
1996), reinstated in relevant part, United States v. Parker, 104
F.3d 72, 73 (en banc).
AFFIRMED.