Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01647/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01647-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerome Daniels
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1647

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Jerome Daniels, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: May 3, 2007

Filed: May 8, 2007 

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jerome Daniels appeals his conviction and 240-month sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to distributing a tenth of a gram of cocaine base,

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841, and after a jury found him guilty of a conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams but less than 1.5

kilograms of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. In a brief filed

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel challenges the sufficiency

Appellate Case: 05-1647 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2007 Entry ID: 3307020
-2-

of the evidence for the conspiracy conviction and the drug-quantity finding, and the

reasonableness of the sentence. 

Following careful review, see United States v. Johnson, 470 F.3d 1234, 1237

(8th Cir. 2006) (evidence must be viewed in light most favorable to government,

accepting all reasonable inferences that support jury’s verdict, and court must affirm

as long as evidence would allow reasonable-minded jury to find defendant guilty

beyond reasonable doubt), and leaving witness-credibility assessments to the jury, see

United States v. Falcon, 477 F.3d 573, 579 (8th Cir. 2007), we conclude there was

ample evidence of at least a tacit understanding among coconspirators to achieve an

illegal purpose, see United States v. Judon, 472 F.3d 575, 582 (8th Cir. 2007);

Johnson, 470 F.3d at 1237. Specifically, the testimony of Officer Jeffrey Gassaway,

the cooperating witnesses, and Daniels himself established that Daniels purchased

from his associates, over a long period of time, small quantities of crack cocaine to

resell. We also hold that a reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable

doubt that Daniels was responsible for more than 500 grams of cocaine base. See

Johnson, 470 F.3d at 1239. Further, the 240-month sentence imposed by the district

court, which constituted a significant downward variance from the 360-months-to-life

advisory Guidelines range, was not unreasonably long in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-64 (2005)

(standard of review). 

Turning to Daniels’s pro se arguments, ineffective-assistance claims are more

properly raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, where the record can be developed.

See United States v. Hughes, 330 F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003). In addition, we

find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Daniels’s motion for grand

jury transcripts, given his failure to make any showing in support of his request for

them. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E); United States v. Warren, 16 F.3d 247, 253 (8th

Cir. 1994) (bare allegation that grand jury records are necessary did not satisfy

“particularized need” requirement); United States v. Broyles, 37 F.3d 1314, 1318 (8th

Appellate Case: 05-1647 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2007 Entry ID: 3307020
-3-

Cir. 1994) (standard of review). Likewise, we find no abuse of discretion, much less

plain error, in the admission of the coconspirators’ testimony, which was not objected

to and was not hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(D) (out-of-court statement is not

hearsay if it is offered against defendant and is statement of defendant’s coconspirator

in furtherance of conspiracy); Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(b) (unobjected-to error); United

States v. McKay, 431 F.3d 1085, 1093-94 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding no abuse of

discretion in admission of coconspirator’s statements), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2345

(2006). Daniels’s remaining contentions about improper remarks by the district court

and the prosecutor are meritless.

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we have found no other nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. We grant Daniels’s motion to add to his supplemental

brief, and we deny his other pending motion.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1647 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/08/2007 Entry ID: 3307020