United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT July 23, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-60707
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANGELIA P. HINTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:05-CR-105-2
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Angelia P. Hinton appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy
to defraud the United States and two counts of conversion of
property belonging to the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 371 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 641, 642. Hinton argues that the district
court erred in admitting into evidence three Government exhibits
which she contends were not provided to her during discovery as
required by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Hinton further argues that the cumulative effect of the trial
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-60707
-2-
court’s errors denied her right to a fair trial and that, as a
result, she is entitled to a new trial.
Hinton concedes that she waived her objection to government
Exhibit G-10. We also conclude that Hinton waived her objection
to Government Exhibit G-1, when counsel agreed, following a
recess to review the documents in G-1, to the admission of the
documents. Because Hinton withdrew her objections to two of the
Government’s exhibits, Hinton waived her right to contest on
appeal their admission into evidence. See United States v.
Musquiz, 45 F.3d 927, 931 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
Government Exhibit G-3, which was comprised of photographs. The
record reflects that the Government listed Exhibit G-3 in the
exhibit list it provided to Hinton prior to trial but that Hinton
did not request copies of the photographs. Rule 16 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires only that the
Government permit the defendant to inspect materials. Because
Hinton did not request copies of the photographs, there was no
violation of Rule 16 and the exhibit was properly admitted.
United States v. Doucette, 979 F.2d 1042, 1044-45 (5th Cir.
1992).
Because the district court did not err in its evidentiary
rulings, a cumulative error analysis is unnecessary in this case.
See United States v. Moye, 951 F.2d 59, 63 n.7 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.