IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50943
(Summary Calendar)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WALTER MANSFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. SA-96-CR-250-1)
- - - - - - - - - -
August 6, 1998
Before SMITH, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Walter Mansfield appeals his convictions
for conspiracy to import cocaine and heroin in violation of
21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 952(a), and 960(a)(1), and for use of a passport
secured by false statements to facilitate drug trafficking in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542. Mansfield argues that, with respect
to the charges of using a fraudulently-obtained passport, the
government failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish venue
in the Western District of Texas, where he was tried. Mansfield
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
also contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient
to support his convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine and
heroin. He further asserts that the district court erred in
overruling his objection that the statement of one of his
coconspirators constitutes hearsay. Finally, Mansfield urges that
his trial counsel was ineffective for neglecting to request that
the venue issue be submitted to the jury.
The Western District of Texas was the proper venue in which to
try Mansfield as that was the judicial district in which he was
arrested. See 18 U.S.C. § 3238. The evidence adduced at trial
sufficiently established that Mansfield had participated in a
conspiracy to import cocaine and heroin. See United States v.
Ramirez, F.3d , No. 96-11075, 1998 WL 344222, at *2
(5th Cir. June 29, 1998); United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d 836, 839
(5th Cir. 1998). The statement of Mansfield’s coconspirator, Jaime
Gil, was in furtherance of the conspiracy and, hence, is excluded
from the hearsay rule by Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). See United
States v. Magee, 821 F.2d 234, 244 (5th Cir. 1987). Finally, as
the Western District of Texas was the proper venue for Mansfield’s
trial, his trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for
not requesting that the issue be submitted to the jury. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984).
AFFIRMED.
2