United States v. David Guity

110 F.3d 65, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11203, 1997 WL 144175
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMarch 27, 1997
Docket95-4337
StatusUnpublished

This text of 110 F.3d 65 (United States v. David Guity) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. David Guity, 110 F.3d 65, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11203, 1997 WL 144175 (6th Cir. 1997).

Opinion

110 F.3d 65

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
David GUITY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 95-4337.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 27, 1997.

Before: KENNEDY, KRUPANSKY, and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

David Guity appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence. This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

In August 1995, a jury found Guity guilty of possession of heroin in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and the district court sentenced him to 78 months of imprisonment.

On appeal, Guity's counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Guity has not responded to his counsel's motion to withdraw.

Upon review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Guity's motion to sever. See United States v. Welch, 97 F.3d 142, 147 (6th Cir.1996), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Dec. 30, 1996) (Nos. 96-7284 and 7396). The district court concluded, prior to trial, that Guity's and his codefendant's post-arrest statements would be inadmissible during the trial. Furthermore, Guity presented no evidence to overcome the presumption that the jury was capable of sorting out the evidence and considering the cases of each defendant. See United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 317 (6th Cir.1988). The district court also properly denied Guity's motion to suppress. See United States v. Leake, 95 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir.1996). The police had probable cause to stop Guity. See New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 457 (1981). Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence to support Guity's conviction. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 324 (1979). The government presented evidence establishing that Guity knowingly possessed heroin with the intent to distribute. United States v. Jackson, 55 F.3d 1219, 1225 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 328 (1995). Guity presented no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion when it impaneled Guity's jury. See United States v. Blanton, 719 F.2d 815, 822 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1099 (1984). Finally, the district court properly enhanced Guity's offense level for obstruction of justice. See United States v. Smart, 41 F.3d 263, 264 (6th Cir.1994). Guity obstructed justice when he provided false testimony during his trial. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 92-93 (1993).

Lastly, we have examined the record in this case and conclude that no reversible error is apparent from the record.

Accordingly, we hereby grant counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirm the district court's judgment. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Jackson v. Virginia
443 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court, 1979)
New York v. Belton
453 U.S. 454 (Supreme Court, 1981)
United States v. Dunnigan
507 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court, 1993)
United States v. Sheldon L. Horton
847 F.2d 313 (Sixth Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Lindsay Carter Smart
41 F.3d 263 (Sixth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Charles v. Leake
95 F.3d 409 (Sixth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Welch
97 F.3d 142 (Sixth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 F.3d 65, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11203, 1997 WL 144175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-guity-ca6-1997.