United States v. Homer

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-41175
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LONNIE RAY HOMER,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(V-00-CR-77-ALL)
--------------------
May 13, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Lonnie Ray Homer appeals his convictions
for distributing cocaine base (crack) and conspiring to distribute
crack. We affirm.
Homer contends that the evidence was insufficient to support
his convictions on the three distribution counts. He relies on his
assertion that the testimony of the cooperating individual
involved, plus the tape recordings of the transactions, constituted

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the only evidence against him. That is not the case: The
government also adduced evidence of (1) surveillance by an FBI
special agent, (2) other precautions taken to avoid any evidentiary
taint, (3) and the crack that Homer distributed. The evidence is
ample to support these convictions. See United States v.
Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1190 (5th Cir. 1997).
Homer further contends that there was insufficient evidence to
support his conviction for conspiracy to distribute crack. We
discern no merit in his argument that the evidence established
nothing more than individual distributions of crack to several of
the government witnesses. See United States v. Peters, 283 F.3d
300, 307 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Apr. 4, 2002)
(No. 01-9578).
Finally, Homer contends that the district court erred by
denying his FED. R. CRIM. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal.
This ruling was correct, however, as there was ample evidence to
support his convictions. See United States v. Baptiste, 264 F.3d
578, 586-87 (5th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --