United States v. Beck

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-40703

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARL ESTER BECK; BOBBY DEWAYNE JONES,

Defendants-Appellants.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:00-CR-77-1

--------------------

June 6, 2002

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carl Ester Beck appeals the judgment of the district court following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base. Bobby Dewayne Jones appeals the judgment of the district court following his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base and distribution of cocaine base near a school.

*

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

No. 01-40703

-2-

Beck argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction. Beck has not shown that the evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved with a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. See United States v. Ortega-Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Dukes, 139 F.3d 469, 474 (5th Cir. 1998). Beck also argues that the district court erred in sentencing him based on its finding that he committed an offense involving crack cocaine. He has not shown error in connection with his sentence. See United States v. Vital, 68 F.3d 114, 120 (5th Cir. 1995).

Jones argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction. He has not shown that the evidence adduced at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was involved with a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. See Ortega-Reyna, 148 F.3d at 543. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.