United States v. Mask

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 00-41127
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE DARREL MASK,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:98-CR-72-2
__________________________________________
June 12, 2001
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lawrence Darrel Mask appeals his conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine
and cocaine base. He argues that 1) there was insufficient evidence proving constructive possession
of the drugs, 2) the prosecutor used a peremptory strike in a discriminatory manner in violation of
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 97 (1986), and 3) the district court abused its discretion when it
did not allow Mask to elicit testimony from an officer about another person having the reputation of
being a drug dealer.
Our review of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could
plausibly infer that Mask had knowledge of and access to the drugs discovered during the search of

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the house. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Meshack, 225 F.3d 556, 570 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom. Parker v. United States, 121 S.
Ct. 834 (2001), amended on reh’g, ___ F.3d ___ (5th Cir. Mar. 7, 2001), 2001 WL 224656. The
record further reveals that the district court’s finding -- that the prosecutor’s peremptory strike was
not based upon discriminatory motives but on the prospective juror’s responses to questions about
whether she could be fair -- was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Fields, 72 F.3d 1200,
1206 (5th Cir. 1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion and Mask has not shown that not
allowing certain testimony from one witness affected Mask’s substantial rights. See United States
v. Franklin, 148 F.3d 451, 458 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --