USA v. Marco Dillon


UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [13-31158 Affirmed ] Judge: JES , Judge: RHB , Judge: ECP Mandate pull date is 12/04/2014 for Appellant Marco Dillon [13-31158]

Download PDF
Case: 13-31158 Document: 00512835652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 13-31158 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 13, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee v. MARCO DILLON, Defendant - Appellant Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:12-CR-190 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marco Dillon was convicted for conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with the intent to distribute, 28 grams or more, but less than 280 grams, of cocaine base (crack), pursuant to 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. In challenging the conviction, Dillon claims the district court erred by admitting certain evidence as intrinsic to the charged conspiracy. (Dillon also claims the evidence is not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), concerning Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. * Case: 13-31158 Document: 00512835652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2014 No. 13-31158 extrinsic evidence. Because, as discussed below, the evidence was intrinsic, we need not reach this second issue.) Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Coleman, 78 F.3d 154, 156 (5th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). During the time period of the charged conspiracy, Dillon sold crack cocaine to the same confidential informant who had previously purchased crack cocaine from two of Dillon’s co-conspirators. Dillon was also arrested for possession of a scale containing cocaine residue. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the evidence as intrinsic because the contested evidence was relevant to establish the relationship between the co-conspirators and how the conspiracy was structured and operated. E.g., United States v. Wood, 58 F.3d 637, 1995 WL 371100 at *5 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished but precedential pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5.3); see also United States v. Watkins, 591 F.3d 780, 784–85 (5th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?