IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40458
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE EDWARD FUGATE,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-00-CR-396-1
--------------------
April 5, 2002
Before DUHÉ, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Lawrence Edward Fugate appeals his jury conviction for
possession with intent to distribute 605 kilograms of marijuana.
He contends that he was denied a fair trial because of the
prosecutor’s misconduct in suggesting to the jury during its
questioning of Fugate that he bore responsibility for presenting
certain witnesses and in making certain remarks during closing
argument.
Even if the prosecutor’s questioning was improper, Fugate has
not shown that the questions deprived him of a fair trial as the
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
prejudicial effect, if any, of the questions was small, the
district court stopped the questioning quickly and instructed the
jury as to the proper burden of proof, and there was sufficient
evidence for the jury to find that Fugate was not an unwitting
driver. See United States v. Anchondo-Sandoval, 910 F.2d 1234,
1237 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Andrews, 22 F.3d 1328, 1344
(5th Cir. 1994).
Nor was there any plain error in the prosecutor’s closing
argument because the district court’s charges to the jury helped
mitigate any prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks and the
Government put on ample evidence of Fugate’s guilt. See United
States v. Washington, 44 F.3d 1271, 1279 (5th Cir. 1995); United
States v. Gallardo-Trapero, 185 F.3d 307, 321 (5th Cir. 1999).
Consequently, the conviction is AFFIRMED.
2