IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-40809
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES ROBERT BARRA,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:95-CR-2
- - - - - - - - - -
May 1, 1996
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Robert Barra appeals his conviction for possession of
firearms after having been convicted of the felony offense of
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He
argues that his conviction should be reversed because the
district court permitted the Government to amend the indictment
as to an essential element of the offense, the evidence of a
prior conviction was insufficient, and the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial based on
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 95-40809
-2-
prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. Our review of
the record, the arguments, and authorities convince us that no
reversible error was committed. The indictment was not “amended”
because the location of the predicate conviction was surplusage,
and Barra was not misled. See United States v. Prior, 546 F.2d
1254, 1257 (5th Cir. 1977); United States v. Wylie, 919 F.2d 969,
973 (5th Cir. 1990). Hence, the evidence was sufficient to prove
the element that Barra was previously convicted of a felony. See
United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. 1982) (en
banc), aff'd, 462 U.S. 356 (1983). Further, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in overruling the objection to the
prosecutor's statements in closing argument and denying the
motion for a new trial. See United States v. Wallace, 32 F.3d
921, 926 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.