United States v. Jackson

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
February 4, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-20385
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ODIS LEE JACKSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(H-02-CR-373-4)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Odis Lee Jackson appeals his convictions and sentences for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of
cocaine base and aiding and abetting possession with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. Jackson was sentenced
to life imprisonment and 10 years of supervised release on each
count, to be served concurrently.
Jackson contends the evidence was insufficient to support his
convictions because there was no evidence that he was aware of the

-- 1 of 2 --

2
drug sale or joined in the conspiracy to sell cocaine. Jackson’s
statements and actions at the time of the drug transaction, as well
as the comments he later made to his co-defendants and a third-
party, were sufficient to establish his knowledge of the drugs,
voluntary participation in the conspiracy, and attempt to make the
venture succeed. Construing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the Government, it is sufficient to support both
convictions. See, e.g., Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318
(1979); United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 603 (5th Cir. 1994).
Because Jackson did not object in district court, we review
for plain error his assertion that the district court failed to
conduct the 21 U.S.C. § 851 colloquy before enhancing his sentence
based on prior convictions. See United States v. Thomas, 348 F.3d
78, 86 (5th Cir. 2003). Jackson does not contend on appeal, nor
did he contend in district court, that he did not commit the prior
convictions or that they were unconstitutionally obtained.
Accordingly, he has not met the plain error standard. See id.
Jackson also asserts that the quantity of drugs should have
been proven as an element of the offense and that Apprendi v. New
Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), has rendered 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a) & (b)
unconstitutional. As Jackson concedes, these arguments are
foreclosed by United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580 (5th Cir.
2000).
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --