Legal Opinion

United States v. Mamic

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 5, 2004No. 01-50367. D.C. No. CR-00-00803-WDK-1Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

Defendant Tom Mamie appeals his conviction on charges of conspiracy and possession of counterfeit securities. Mamie argues that the district court abused its discretion in admitting testimony from a government witness concerning the basis of his belief that a check Mamie had given him to cash was counterfeit.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s admission of lay witness testimony, see United States v. Matsumaru, 244 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States of America,plaintiff-Appellee v. Sho Jay MatsumaruCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  2. United States v. HenkeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  3. United States v. Enrique Gomez-Gonzalez, AKA Jorge Cholico-GomezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API