United States v. Mayfield

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 13, 2003
Docket01-21262
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Mayfield (United States v. Mayfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth 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. Mayfield, (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-21262 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SHANNON MAYFIELD,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. H-01-CR-204-1 -------------------- January 10, 2003

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shannon Mayfield appeals his conviction of, and sentence

for, aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute

cocaine. Mayfield argues that the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction, because there was no evidence that he

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 01-21262 -2-

knew of the presence of the cocaine in his vehicle. He also

contends that he should not have received a two-level adjustment

under the Sentencing Guidelines for obstruction of justice.

Because Mayfield did not renew his motion for a judgment of

acquittal at the close of evidence, our review of the sufficiency

of the evidence is limited to determining whether there was a

manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Johnson, 87

F.3d 133, 136 (5th Cir. 1996). In light of the ample evidence of

Mayfield’s knowing involvement in the cocaine transaction, this

standard has not been met.

The district court did not clearly err in determining that

Mayfield had committed perjury and suborned perjury at trial,

thus warranting the adjustment for obstruction of justice. See

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th

Cir. 1994). This determination did not impinge on Mayfield’s

right to defend himself. See United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S.

87, 96 (1993); United States v. Como, 53 F.3d 87, 89 (5th Cir.

1995).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

United States v. Storm
36 F.3d 1289 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Como
53 F.3d 87 (Fifth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Dunnigan
507 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court, 1993)
United States v. Terrance Lenair Johnson
87 F.3d 133 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Mayfield, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-mayfield-ca5-2003.