Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 10-4187
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00050-RLV-DSC-14)
Submitted:
NIEMEYER,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
HAMILTON,
PER CURIAM:
Samuel
Juvon
Bowens
appeals
his
conviction
after
with
intent
to
distribute
quantity
of
cocaine
and
We
affirm.
Bowens raises four claims of error on appeal:
(1) his
claim.
I.
Bowens
does
not
contest
the
sufficiency
of
the
the Government did not meet its burden to show that he was
defendant
challenging
sufficiency
of
the
the
the
light
most
favorable
to
the
government,
any
rational
519
circumstantial
evidence,
We
and
review
accord
both
the
direct
and
government
all
United
States
v.
Harvey,
532
F.3d
326,
333
We
uphold
the
jurys
verdict
if
Foster, 507
F.3d at 244-45.
Because this case involved a conspiracy charge under
21 U.S.C. 846, the Government was required to prove (1) an
agreement between Bowens and another person to engage in conduct
3
United
may
States
(en
v.
banc).
include
94
Burgos,
Evidence
defendants
F.3d
tending
849,
to
relationship
857
prove
with
other
need
not
exclude
every
reasonable
Id.
(citation omitted).
It
is
unnecessary
discrete,
identifiable
States
Banks,
v.
important
10
consideration
that
the
organizational
F.3d
is
1044,
1054
whether
the
conspiracy
have
structure.
United
demonstrated
An
a
brackets omitted).
4
We
sufficient
have
reviewed
evidence
the
supports
record,
Bowenss
and
conclude
conspiracy
that
conviction.
they
purchased
large
quantities
of
cocaine
base
from
cocaine
narcotics
and
Bowens
cocaine
base
transacted
to
clearly
Bowens.
implies
The
volume
of
an
effort
to
devotes
much
of
his
brief
to
attacking
the
440.
II.
Scope of Cross-Examination
the
scope
of
his
cross-examination
of
Dr.
Hacene
Boudries, an
Q.
. . . Let me ask you, any of these test or
results performed by the itemiser 3, are they fact?
The conclusion, is that a fact?
A.
[Y]eah, the results are its telling you with a
high level of confidence that something a drug has
been detected . . . You can look at the level or the
intensity of the peak. Thats what it is.
I mean,
its an analytical tool that results.
Q.
A.
Q.
Your answer was the test results are considered
fact, right?
THE COURT:
Thats argumentative,
may move on to something else.
counselor.
You
Q.
Does a fact ever have less than a two percent
failure rate?
THE COURT:
Q.
Same ruling.
THE COURT:
Same ruling.
challenges
the
courts
actions
on
appeal.
States
v.
Olano,
507
U.S.
6
725,
732-35
(1993).
To
establish
plain
error,
[Bowens]
must
show
that
an
error
occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected
his substantial rights.
247,
249
requirements,
correction
Even
of
the
if
Bowens
error
satisfies
remains
within
these
[the
reputation
of
judicial
proceedings.
Id.
(internal
defendant
has
the
right
to
have
a
Smith,
451
F.3d,
209,
221
meaningful
United States v.
(quoting
United
Accordingly,
[based]
on
such
concerns
as
prejudice,
Id.
Boudries acknowledged
worst.
Moreover,
questioning
to
Bowens
emphasize
could
the
have
changed
incidence
of
his
false
line
of
positive
We cannot
court
properly
21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A).
interpreted
the
term
Whether a
felony
drug
841
does
not
define
the
term
felony
drug
unambiguous terms.
Id. at 662.
to
narcotic
drugs,
marihuana,
anabolic
steroids,
21 U.S.C. 802(44).
or
This
court has held that because the term felony drug offense is
specifically defined in 802(44), and 841(b)(1)(A) makes use
of that precise term, the logical, commonsense way to interpret
felony drug offense in 841(b)(1)(A) is by reference to the
definition in 802(44).
felony
Controlled
under
state
Substances
Act
law
but
does
not
misdemeanor
qualify
as
under
a
the
felony
We
misplaced.
conclude
that
Bowenss
reliance
on
Lopez
is
But Congress
one
year
State[.]
21
Bowenss
2003
under
U.S.C.
any
conviction
law
of
the
United
802(44)
(emphasis
was
for
felony
States
or
added).
drug
of
Because
offense,
the
IV.
This
United
Under the
United
States
v.
10
Jeffers,
570
F.3d
557,
570
involved
by
preponderance
of
the
evidence.
United
Where
scale
quantity
of
of
the
the
offense,
the
controlled
court
shall
approximate
substance.
U.S.
the
Sentencing
While
therefore
affirm
the
judgment
of
the
district
court
are
adequately
and
argument
addressed
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
11