IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60246
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
EVAN DOSS, JR.; EVAN DOSS, JR., CORP.,
Defendants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:98-CR-5-1-2
- - - - - - - - - -
June 30, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Evan Doss, Jr., and the Evan Doss, Jr., Corporation appeal
from their convictions for conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud
(both defendants), concealment of assets (Evan Doss, Jr.,
Corporation only), and two counts of fraudulent transfer of assets
(Evan Doss, Jr. only) in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 152(1), 152(7),
and 371. The defendants argue that: the evidence was insufficient
to support the conspiracy convictions, the district court abused
its discretion by denying their motion for the appointment of an
expert witness, the district court abused its discretion by
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
allowing the introduction of evidence concerning Doss’s prior
convictions and other bad acts, the district court erred in its
calculation of the amount of the loss used for sentencing purposes,
and the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury with
regard to Doss’s good-faith defense. We have reviewed the record
and find no reversible error. The evidence was sufficient to
support the defendants’ conspiracy convictions. See United States
v. Fletcher, 121 F.3d 187, 196 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.
640 (1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying the defendants’ motion for an expert witness. See United
States v. Castro, 15 F.3d 417, 421-22 (5th Cir. 1994); see also
United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 1993)
(defendant must demonstrate with specificity why services under 18
U.S.C. § 3006A(e)(1) are required). The district court did not
abuse its discretion by permitting cross-examination of Doss about
his prior conviction without first conducting a balancing test, see
United States v. Preston, 608 F.2d 626, 638 n.15 (5th Cir. 1979),
or by permitting cross-examination of him about an earlier civil
lawsuit and the corporation’s failure to file income tax returns.
Based upon the information contained in the PSR and the testimony
at the sentencing hearing, the district court did not clearly err
by using $122,117.45 as the amount of the loss for sentencing
purposes. See United States v. Wimbish, 980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th
Cir. 1992). Finally, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by refusing to give a good faith jury instruction. See
United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d 1070, 1076 (5th Cir. 1993).
Accordingly, the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.