USA vs. Lawson (5th Cir. 1999)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (February 17, 1999)

Docket number: 98-30297

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/usa-vs-lawson-19989737
Id. vLex: VLEX-19989737

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Vaquero, A/K/a Michael or Mike Vacuero or Vaccaro, Clarence Taylor, Jr., and Herman J. Mouton, Jr., Defendants-Appellants. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence Taylor, Jr., Defendant-Appellant., 997 F.2d 78 (5th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Froilan Rosalez-Orozco, Defendant-Appellant., 8 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry James Pierre and Otis Harris, Iii, Defendants-Appellants., 958 F.2d 1304 (5th Cir. 1992)

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30297

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FREDRICK D. LAWSON, JR.

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-10016-1

February 15, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and STEWART, Circuit

Judges.

PER CURIAM:* Fredrick D. Lawson, Jr., appeals his conviction for distribution of cocaine base. The sale in issue was to an undercover officer, who testified at trial, as did Lawson. Lawson contends that his counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence (he had so moved at the close of the Government's case, prior to Lawson testifying); and that the evidence was insufficient for finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

After reviewing the record and arguments on appeal, we conclude that Lawson was not prejudiced by counsel's not then seeking judgment of acquittal because, even had counsel done so, the motion would have been denied. Restated, the evidence was sufficient for conviction. See United States v. Rosalez-Orozco, 8 F.3d 198, 199 (5th Cir. 1993).

On the merits of the sufficiency claim, and because the motion for judgment of acquittal was not made at the close of the evidence, we review under a far more restricted standard. Lawson must demonstrate plain error or a manifest miscarriage of justice based upon insufficiency of the evidence. See United States v. Pierre, 958 F.2d 1304, 1310 (5th Cir. 1992)(en banc); United States v. Vaquero, 997 F.2d 78, 82 (5th Cir. 1993). As reflected above, he fails to do so.

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.