Case ID: f-appx_136/html/0677-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis Darryl NORRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-50839.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided June 24, 2005.
    
      Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, Lori Ann Alvino, U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Solicitor General, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Philip J. Lynch, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

The district court judge did not commit reversible error by referring the jury to the original jury instruction on conspirator liability without consulting trial counsel, because that instruction was a correct and clear statement of the law and was applicable to the facts and evidence presented at trial. See United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 293 (5th Cir. 2002). Next, the record contains ample circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer that Norris knowingly and voluntarily entered into a criminal conspiracy with his father to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine. See United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139, 1157 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that a jury may infer an agreement from circumstantial evidence). Finally, because Norris cannot demonstrate that any error committed by the district court at his sentencing affected his substantial rights, Norris’s claims of Fifth and Sixth Amendment violations at his sentencing must be rejected under plain error review. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.2005). Accordingly, Norris’s convictions and sentence are AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.