IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-51063
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIM NEWTON BARR;
HAROLD EUGENE PAYNE,
Defendants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-97-CR-46-1
- - - - - - - - - -
October 13, 1998
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants appeal their convictions for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Jim Newton
Barr argues that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion for a redetermination of his competency given
that he had attempted suicide, the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to permit lay testimony regarding Barr’s
sanity at the time of the offense, the district court erred in
holding him accountable for more than three kilograms of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-51063
-2-
methamphetamine, and the district court erred in denying Barr a
mistrial after testimony that had been ruled inadmissible was
admitted. Harold Eugene Payne argues that the district court
plainly erred in failing to instruct the jury that evidence of
Barr’s “bad acts” could not be considered with respect to Payne.
Both Barr and Payne incorporate the argument and authorities
of each other’s briefs to the extent that they apply. None of
the above issues relate to both appellants. Accordingly, the
arguments are not subject to adoption. United States v. Harris,
932 F.2d 1529, 1533 (5th Cir. 1991).
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convince us that no reversible error was committed. The district
court’s denial of Barr’s motion to reconsider his competency was
not clearly arbitrary or unwarranted. United States v. Dockins,
986 F.2d 888, 890 (5th Cir. 1986). Barr failed to preserve error
with respect to the admissibility of lay testimony because Barr
never asked the court to admit the testimony. United States v.
Pecora, 693 F.2d 421, 425 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court’s
finding with respect to the amount of drugs was not clearly
erroneous. United States v. Brito, 136 F.3d 397, 415 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1817, 2389 (1998). Barr’s conclusional
assertion that the jury did not disregard the statements about
Barr hitting his girlfriend is insufficient to rebut the
presumption that the jury followed the district court’s curative
instruction. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 740-41
(1993). Similarly, Payne has not shown that the need for an
additional instruction was so obvious that the court’s failure to
No. 97-51063
-3-
provide the instruction affected Payne’s substantial rights.
United States v. Prati, 861 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1988).
AFFIRMED.