United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 4, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-21117
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
REGINALD SHARP,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-01-CR-740-ALL
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Reginald Sharp appeals from his conviction of being a felon
in possession of a firearm. He argues that the district court
committed reversible error when it removed him from the courtroom
during voir dire and when it refused to allow him to confer with
counsel regarding exercising his challenges for cause.
Sharp did not object to the continuation of proceedings in
his absence and, therefore, review is for plain error only. See
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-21117
-2-
United States v. Roberts, 913 F.2d 211, 216 (5th Cir. 1990). The
district court warned Sharp that he was to remain quiet and that
he would be removed from the courtroom if he continued his
disrespectful behavior. Neither the Supreme Court nor the
Federal Rules requires more. See Allen v. Illinois, 397 U.S.
337, 343 (1970); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 43(c)(1)(C). Sharp has
not shown that his removal from the courtroom was plain error.
Sharp asserts, in a conclusional fashion only, that in
refusing counsel’s request for a recess, his constitutional
rights were violated and that he was prejudiced. These wholly
conclusional allegations are insufficient to show that the
district court’s decision “seriously affect[ed] the fairness,
integrity or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings” and
are therefore insufficient to demonstrate plain error. See
United States v. Vasquez, 216 F.3d 456, 459 (2000).
Insofar as Sharp argues that his absence from the courtroom
deprived him of the ability to fully advise counsel on the
issuance of peremptory strikes, his reliance on United States v.
Alikpo, 944 F.2d 206, 210 (5th Cir. 1991) is misplaced, because
Sharp waived his right to be present; Alikpo did not.
Sharp concedes that his sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument
is foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 518
(5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1150 (2002), and he
raises it only to preserve its further review by the Supreme
Court. We are indeed bound by our precedent absent an
No. 02-21117
-3-
intervening Supreme Court decision or a subsequent en banc
decision. See United States v. Stone, 306 F.3d 241, 243 (5th
Cir. 2002).
AFFIRMED.