United States v. Shoels
This text of United States v. Shoels (United States v. Shoels) 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.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50355 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICK SHOELS,
Defendant-Appellant.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-00-CR-625-1 -------------------- December 11, 2002
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rick Shoels appeals his conviction, following a jury trial,
of possession of 50 grams or more of cocaine base with intent to
distribute, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
Shoels contends that the district court erred when it
overruled his challenge to the court’s instruction that the jury
was not required to find that he aided and abetted the offense in
order to find him guilty as a principal. The claim is meritless.
Aiding and abetting is not a separate crime, but an alternative
charge in every indictment, whether explicit or implicit.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-50355 -2-
See United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630, 633 (5th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Pearson, 667 F.2d 12, 13-14 (5th Cir. 1980).
The district court properly charged the jury both as a principal
and as an aider-and-abettor.
Through a letter mailed to the clerk of court after
appointed counsel had filed his appellate brief, Shoels has moved
for the substitution of counsel, to strike the brief filed by
counsel, and to proceed pro se on appeal if the court will not
appoint a new attorney. The motion is DENIED. See United States
v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998); FIFTH CIRCUIT PLAN
UNDER THE CJA, § 3.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Shoels, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-shoels-ca5-2002.