United States v. Redd

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Redd

144 F. App'x 419

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 2005

Docket04-60661

StatusUnpublished

This text of 144 F. App'x 419 (United States v. Redd) 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. Redd, 144 F. App'x 419 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

A federal jury convicted Starsky Darnell Redd of attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Redd appealed his conviction, and it was affirmed. The case was remanded, however, for the district court to rule on Redd’s motion for a new trial, which was based on newly discovered evidence. On remand, the district court denied Redd’s motion, and Redd now appeals.

Redd argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. That motion was based on the testimony of Joe Reid, one of Redd’s cellmates during pretrial detention. Reid’s testimony corroborated Redd’s statement that he had never made any jailhouse confession to the crime, and it impeached the testimony of two Government witnesses who had testified to the contrary. Although circumstantial, the case against Redd was a strong one even if the testimony of the cellmates is not taken into account. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Redd’s motion as it is not probable that Reid’s testimony would result in an acquittal at a new trial. See United States v. Erwin, 277 F.3d 727, 731 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 551 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Freeman, 77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.1996).

Redd also challenges his sentence for the first time in this appeal. By failing to raise any sentencing issues in his first appeal, however, Redd has waived those issues. See Brooks v. United States, 757 F.2d 734, 739 (5th Cir.1985). Redd’s argument that the waiver doctrine should not be applied because his sentencing arguments were previously foreclosed is unavailing. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622-23, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998).

AFFIRMED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

A federal jury convicted Starsky Darnell Redd of attempting to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Redd appealed his conviction, and it was affirmed. The case was remanded, however, for the district court to rule on Redd’s motion for a new trial, which was based on newly discovered evidence. On remand, the district court denied Redd’s motion, and Redd now appeals.

Redd argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. That motion was based on the testimony of Joe Reid, one of Redd’s cellmates during pretrial detention. Reid’s testimony corroborated Redd’s statement that he had never made any jailhouse confession to the crime, and it impeached the testimony of two Government witnesses who had testified to the contrary. Although circumstantial, the case against Redd was a strong one even if the testimony of the cellmates is not taken into account. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Redd’s motion as it is not probable that Reid’s testimony would result in an acquittal at a new trial. See United States v. Erwin, 277 F.3d 727, 731 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Lowder, 148 F.3d 548, 551 (5th Cir.1998); United States v. Freeman, 77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.1996).

Redd also challenges his sentence for the first time in this appeal. By failing to raise any sentencing issues in his first appeal, however, Redd has waived those issues. See Brooks v. United States, 757 F.2d 734, 739 (5th Cir.1985). Redd’s argument that the waiver doctrine should not be applied because his sentencing arguments were previously foreclosed is unavailing. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 622-23, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998).

AFFIRMED.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 F. App'x 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-redd-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack