United States v. Shelton

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Shelton

119 F. App'x 638

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 7, 2005

Docket04-40307

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 F. App'x 638 (United States v. Shelton) 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. Shelton, 119 F. App'x 638 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Monty Marcellus Shelton appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm while under indictment. 21 U.S.C. § 841; 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). He argues (1) that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, (2) that the testimony of two police officers contained hearsay, in violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and (3) that his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

The evidence at trial was overwhelming. The Government presented 12 witnesses, most of whom attested to Shelton’s possession of large quantities of methamphetamine phis as well as his activities as a dealer of methamphetamine. One witness testified that Shelton was in possession of at least 30,000 methamphetamine pills. Another testified that approximately 5,000 methamphetamine pills were found in Shelton’s vehicle. Witnesses also attested to Shelton’s possession of the two shotguns charged in counts two and three. This argument is without merit. See United States v. Payne, 99 F.3d 1273, 1278 (5th Cir.1996).

Shelton’s argument that hearsay testimony was erroneously admitted at trial fails. Any error in admitting the testimony was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. See Unit *640 ed States v. Cantu, 167 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir.1999).

Shelton’s argument that his sentence is illegal under Blakely is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464 (5th Cir.2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated by — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1003, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 124197 (2005).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Monty Marcellus Shelton appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine and for two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm while under indictment. 21 U.S.C. § 841; 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). He argues (1) that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, (2) that the testimony of two police officers contained hearsay, in violation of his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and (3) that his sentence violates Blakely v. Washington, - U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004).

The evidence at trial was overwhelming. The Government presented 12 witnesses, most of whom attested to Shelton’s possession of large quantities of methamphetamine phis as well as his activities as a dealer of methamphetamine. One witness testified that Shelton was in possession of at least 30,000 methamphetamine pills. Another testified that approximately 5,000 methamphetamine pills were found in Shelton’s vehicle. Witnesses also attested to Shelton’s possession of the two shotguns charged in counts two and three. This argument is without merit. See United States v. Payne, 99 F.3d 1273, 1278 (5th Cir.1996).

Shelton’s argument that hearsay testimony was erroneously admitted at trial fails. Any error in admitting the testimony was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. See Unit *640 ed States v. Cantu, 167 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir.1999).

Shelton’s argument that his sentence is illegal under Blakely is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464 (5th Cir.2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated by — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 1003, — L.Ed.2d -, 2005 WL 124197 (2005).

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)

119 F. App'x 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shelton-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack