IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________________
No. 97-30485
__________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMY NIXON,
Defendant-Appellant.
___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(96-CR-105-B)
___________________________________________________
February 7, 2000
Before GARWOOD, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this direct criminal appeal, Defendant-Appellant Jimmy
Nixon contests his conviction by a jury on six counts of mail fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; eight counts of wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; eleven counts of two different types
of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)
and (B)(i); and four counts of illegal monetary transactions in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a). All counts related to a scheme
in which Nixon fraudulently obtained funds from persons seeking
large loans through him which he had no intention of providing. On
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
appeal Nixon insists that the district court committed reversible
error in refusing to hold a hearing after he was convicted but
before sentencing to determine whether he was mentally competent to
stand trial; and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his
money laundering convictions for both promotion money laundering
under subsection (A)(i) and concealment money laundering under
subsection (B)(i) of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1).
We have now reviewed the relevant facts as contained in the
record on appeal and have considered the applicable law as set
forth in appellate briefs of counsel and in their oral argument to
the court. As a result, we are firmly convinced that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order a
competency hearing sua sponte; and that the evidence presented to
the jury is more than sufficient to support all counts on which
Nixon was convicted, particularly when considered in light of the
plain error standard of review which applies under the
circumstances of this case. We therefore affirm Nixon's conviction
on all counts.
AFFIRMED.