USA vs. Nickerson, (5th Cir. 2004)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40828 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BYRON LAMOAN NICKERSON; RUBEN CURTIS WILLIS; a/k/a Donnie Willis; SYLVESTER WILLIAM BROWN, JR.; JEFFREY WAYNE CROSS; BRIAN KEITH DAVISON; CECIL LAMAR DOUGLAS, JR.; WELBY SAMUAL PLEASANT, II; CEDRIC DONELLE JONES; and LILLIAN BRYANT PERRY, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:96-CR-13-5 July 9, 1997 Before WISDOM, KING, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Sylvester William Brown, Jeffrey Wayne Cross, Brian Keith Davison, Cecil Lamar Douglas, Byron Lamoan Nickerson, Welby Samual Pleasant II, Ruben Curtis Willis, and Cedric Donelle Jones have appealed their convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, distribution of cocaine base, employment of a minor to distribute cocaine base, distribution of Appellants contend that the trial court violated their confrontation rights in refusing to permit cross-examination of a Government witness on the question of racial bias. § 860 offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 5 Appellants argue that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. Appellants argue generally that the GovernmentÂ’s evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the existence of an agreement to violate the narcotics laws. 6 We have carefully reviewed the briefs and the transcript of the trial. The GovernmentÂ’s evidence, although circumstantial, can fairly be characterized as overwhelming. The jury could reasonably have inferred that the defendants would not have been permitted by Brown to deal crack cocaine at his residence unless there had been an agreement among them. Nickerson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence showing that on December 13, 1995 and on December 19, 1995 he possessed crack cocaine base with intent to distribute, as alleged in counts 21 and 22 of the superseding indictment, respectively.
The jury could reasonably have concluded that the December 13, 1995, transaction occurred, was in furtherance of the conspiracy, and was reasonably foreseeable to Nickerson. 7 Although the - evidence with respect to the December 19, 1995 transaction is muddled, a reasonable juror could have resolved the inconsistencies in the evidence in favor of conviction. AFFIRMED.
No. 96-40828 - 2 - 1 United States v. McKinney , 53 F.3d 664, 671 (5th Cir. 1995)
No. 96-40828 -
No. 96-40828 -
No. 96-40828 -
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Othniel Mckinney, Sr., Lonnie Charles Smith, Donald Earl Wade, Brent Ledean Allen, Carolyn Sue Walker, and Antonio Turner, Defendants-Appellants.
See other documents that cite the same legislation
