United States v. Miller

*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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
2373 U.S. 83 (1963).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40979
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICKEY EUGENE MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:97-CR-11-7
____________________________________________
April 10, 2000
Before POLITZ, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Rickey Eugene Miller appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack
cocaine, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that
the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial based on an alleged
violation of Brady v. Maryland,2 and that the court erred by denying his requested
jury instruction.

-- 1 of 2 --

3United States v. Villasenor, 894 F.2d 1422 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Kates,
174 F.3d 580 (5th Cir. 1999).
4United States v. Correa-Ventura, 6 F.3d 1070 (5th Cir. 1993).
2
Our review of the briefs of the parties and the record before the court persuades that
no reversible error was committed at trial. Even discounting the evidence establishing
that Miller conspired with Donna Porter during the controlled buy, the evidence
introduced was sufficient to establish that Miller conspired with other persons not
named in the indictment. Therefore, Miller’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence and the denial of his motion for a new trial both fail.3 Miller’s contention that
the court erred by declining to give a buyer-seller jury instruction fails because the
instruction requested was not supported by the required evidentiary foundation.4
The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --