USA v. Armstead

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [09-30091 Affirmed ] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO Mandate pull date is 10/05/2010 for Appellant Tremayne D Armstead and Appellant Travis L. Williams [09-30091]

USA v. Armstead

Doc. 0

Case: 09-30091

Document: 00511233020

Page: 1

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-30091 S u m m a r y Calendar September 14, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA, P la in t if f -A p p e lle e v. T R E M A Y N E D. ARMSTEAD, also known as Pokey, TRAVIS L. WILLIAMS, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lla n t s

A p p e a ls from the United States District Court fo r the Middle District of Louisiana U S D C No. 3:07-CR-70-1

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* T r e m a y n e D. Armstead and Travis L. Williams were convicted by jury v e r d ic t of conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of a substance containing c r a c k cocaine and distributing 50 grams or more of a substance containing crack c o c a in e . Armstead was sentenced to a total of 276 months of imprisonment and t e n years of supervised release. Williams was sentenced to a total of 120 months o f imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-30091

Document: 00511233020 Page: 2 No. 09-30091

Date Filed: 09/14/2010

W illia m s argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to s e v e r his trial because evidence of Armstead's prior drug dealings with the c o n fid e n tia l informant (CI), some of which did not involve Williams, prejudiced h is defense. In light of the minimal potential prejudice from that evidence to W illia m s , as well as the trial court's jury instructions in this regard, Williams h a s failed to show that the district court erred in this regard. See United States v . Simmons, 374 F.3d 313, 317 (5th Cir. 2004). W illia m s also contends that the district court erred by permitting the DEA a g e n t to testify that the CI had positively identified Armstead as the person the C I knew as "Pokey." Even if it is assumed that Williams has standing to raise t h is challenge, that this challenge has been preserved for appeal, and that the t e s t im o n y constituted inadmissible hearsay, any error was rendered harmless b y the CI's trial testimony confirming that identification. See United States v. R a g s d a le , 426 F.3d 765, 774 (5th Cir. 2005). A r m s t e a d argues that his sentence is both procedurally and substantively u n r e a s o n a b le in light of the district court's failure to properly consider his r e q u e s t to lower his sentence to reduce the disparity ratio between crack and p o w d e r cocaine. Our review of the transcript shows that the district court's e x p la n a t io n rejecting Armstead's argument for a lower ratio and supporting the im p o s e d sentence was adequate. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 351 ( 2 0 0 7 ). Moreover, Armstead has failed to overcome the presumption of

r e a s o n a b le n e s s afforded to his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. A lo n z o , 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006). T h e district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.

2