IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-11111
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WALTER LEE JACOBS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CR-74-ALL
_________________________________________________________________
August 6, 1999
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Walter Lee Jacobs appeals his jury conviction for three counts
of illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Jacobs argues that the district
court erred in excluding an out-of-court statement of Sam Brown in
which Brown stated that he was the owner of two firearms that are
the subject of counts one and two. The district court did not
clearly err in holding that Jacobs did not present sufficient
corroborating evidence to establish the trustworthiness of the
statement. See United States v. Dean, 59 F.3d 1479, 1492 (5th Cir.
1995). Further, any error in the omission of the evidence was
harmless as the government presented substantial evidence linking
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Jacobs to the 2718 Cross Street residence in which the firearms
were found and to the firearms, including the current documents
found in the residence listing Jacobs’ name and the Cross Street
address, the photograph of Jacobs holding the SKS rifle found under
the bed in the Cross Street residence, and Jacobs’ own statement
when he was booked that he lived at the Cross Street residence.
The omission of Brown’s out-of-court statement did not prevent
Jacobs from presenting a defense or witnesses in violation of the
rule set forth in Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973)
or Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967).
Jacobs also argues that the district court’s jury instruction
concerning the interstate commerce element of the offense removed
that element from the jury’s consideration in violation of the rule
in United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). Jacobs
acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by this court’s
decision in United States v. Parker, 104 F.3d 72, 73 (5th Cir.)(en
banc), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1223 (1997), as the district court’s
jury instruction merely explained what evidence was required to
establish the interstate commerce element of the offense.
A F F I R M E D.
2