IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60419
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GREGORY SCOTT LEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CR-13-ALL-LN
--------------------
March 22, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Gregory Scott Lee appeals from his conviction for being a
felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Finding no error, we affirm.
Lee argues that the district court erred by admitting the
testimony of police officers that Lee made incriminating statements
about the firearm in question. Lee contends first that the
prosecutor violated the district court's discovery order and the
rule of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), by failing to
disclose the statements to defense counsel before the morning of
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
trial. We review alleged errors in the administration of discovery
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ellender, 947 F.2d 748,
756 (5th Cir. 1991). Lee has failed to state a Brady claim. See
United States v. Martinez-Mercado, 888 F.2d 1484, 1488-89 (5th Cir.
1989). To the extent that Lee has raised a violation of Fed. R.
Crim. P. 16, Lee has failed to show that the error was sufficiently
prejudicial to his substantial rights to warrant reversal. See
United States v. Arcentales, 532 F.2d 1046, 1050 (5th Cir. 1976);
United States v. Cochran, 697 F.2d 600, 605-06 (5th Cir. 1983).
Lee next argues that the statements should have been
suppressed because the police failed to give him the warnings
required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966). We
conclude that at the time Lee made the statements he was not yet in
custody. See United States v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 596 (5th
Cir. 1988)(en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2