The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
99-30810•United States v. Johnson
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-30810
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MELVIN JOHNSON also known as Pap-Poo,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 98-CR-30024-2
--------------------
May 2, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Melvin Johnson appeals his jury conviction of conspiracy to
distribute and to possess with intent distribute cocaine and
crack cocaine. Johnson argues that the testimony from a number
of coconspirators was insufficient to support the conspiracy
conviction, that the Government failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that Johnson was a leader of the
conspiracy warranting a four-level increase to his offense level,
and that the Government did not verify whether Johnson was on
-- 1 of 2 --
No. 99-30810
-2-
probation when he committed the conspiracy thereby warranting the
addition of two criminal history points.
The trial testimony of the coconspirators was sufficient
evidence proving that Johnson was involved in a drug conspiracy
as alleged in count one of the indictment, and we will not review
the credibility of those witnesses. See United States v.
Villegas-Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 224, 228 (5th Cir. 1999); United
States v. Ybarra, 70 F.3d 362, 364 (5th Cir. 1995). The trial
testimony further showed that Johnson was the leader of the
conspiracy, and the district court did not clearly err when it
overruled Johnson’s motion and allowed the four-level increase to
his sentence based upon his role in the offense. See U.S.S.G.
§ 3B1.1(a); United States v. Parker, 133 F.3d 322, 329 (5th Cir.
1998). Furthermore, there was no error with the addition of two
criminal history points based upon Johnson being on probation at
the time he committed the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.1(d).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.