IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50337
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT BENJAMIN BADGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-98-CR-087-1
--------------------
January 12, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Benjamin Badger was convicted of one count of
distribution of cocaine base. On appeal, he argues that the
trial court abused its discretion by denying a jury request to
let him speak after the close of evidence, but before closing
arguments. We have reviewed the briefs and the record and hold
that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing
to reopen the evidence to let Badger speak, given that Badger
testified before the jury and the request would have resulted in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-50337
-2-
cumulative evidence. See United States v. Walker, 772 F.2d 1172,
1177 (5th Cir. 1985); United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117,
125-26 (5th Cir. 1995). Likewise, refusing to allow Badger to
give part of the closing arguments while maintaining attorney
representation was not an abuse of discretion. See United States
v. Patterson, 42 F.3d 246, 248 (5th Cir. 1994).
Badger also challenges the admission of evidence of other
crimes, in violation of FED. R. EVID. 404(b). The questionable
statement was relevant to an issue other than Badger’s character
because it explained why the confidential informant acted in a
certain way, and the information was more probative than
prejudicial. See United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911
(5th Cir. 1978)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.