Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01649/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01649-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jevaughn D. Erwin
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. 05-1649

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Jevaughn D. Erwin, also known as *

Pockets, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006 

Filed: April 12, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jevaughn Erwin (Erwin) appeals his court-tried1

 conviction for conspiracy to

distribute fifty or more grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and

846. For reversal, he argues insufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

At trial, the government presented the testimony of cooperating witnesses, who

testified pursuant to plea agreements for drug convictions. On direct examination, the

Appellate Case: 05-1649 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2006 Entry ID: 2031735
2

Erwin moved to file a pro se supplemental brief. Because Erwin is

represented by counsel and gives us no reason to depart from our general rule that we

do not consider pro se briefs by defendants who are represented by counsel, see

United States v. Clark, 409 F.3d 1039, 1041 n.2 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 811

(2005), we deny his motion. 

witnesses testified to numerous drug transactions with Erwin that showed his

participation in a conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine. On cross-examination,

defense counsel attacked the credibility of the witnesses, pointing out, among other

things, inconsistencies between their testimony and their prior statements, and

discrepancies in their testimony concerning dates of certain drug transactions. 

On appeal, Erwin asserts the evidence is insufficient because the witnesses’

testimony was incredible. We disagree. The district court expressly took into account

the inconsistencies and discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimony, but nonetheless

found there was sufficient credible testimony to find Erwin had conspired to distribute

more than fifty grams of crack cocaine during the time period alleged in the

indictment. Given our stringent standard of review, see United States v. Crenshaw,

359 F.3d 977, 988 (8th Cir. 2004) (“The test for rejecting evidence as incredible is

extraordinarily stringent and is often said to bar reliance only on testimony asserting

facts that are physically impossible.”), we must affirm, see id. at 990-91 (listing cases

upholding convictions despite inconsistencies in testimony).2 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1649 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2006 Entry ID: 2031735