UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-60526
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EVAN DOSS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Mississippi
(5:97-CR-1 BrN & 5:97-CR-3 BrN)
June 29, 1998
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Evan Doss, Jr. appeals his convictions for embezzlement and money
laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1)(A), 1956(a)(1)(B)(I), contending
that the district court (1) erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (2) abused its discretion in failing to grant his
May 14, 1997 motion for continuance, and (3) excluded the testimony of two
defense witnesses in violation of his sixth amendment right to compulsory process.
*
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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
For the first time on appeal, Doss also contends that the district court erred in
changing venue from the Western Division of the Southern District of Mississippi
to the Jackson Division thereof.
Our review of the record, briefs, and authorities persuades that no reversible
error was committed. The district court did not err in denying Doss’s motion to
dismiss the indictment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.1 Nor did it abuse its
broad discretion in denying Doss a continuance.2 Despite suggestions to the
contrary, the district court did not exclude the testimony of two defense witnesses
in violation of Doss’s sixth amendment right to compulsory process.3 Finally, the
district court did not err, plainly or otherwise, in transferring this case. 4
AFFIRMED.
1
United States v. Moeller, 987 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1993).
2
United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d 1070 (5th Cir. 1993).
3
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982).
4
United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); United States v.
James, 528 F.2d 999 (5th Cir. 1976).
2