Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01996/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01996-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Therase LaShown Warren
Appellant

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge of the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1996

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Therase LaShown Warren, also * [UNPUBLISHED]

known as "Slow," *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 10, 2004

Filed: May 17, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and GOLDBERG,*

 Judge of the United

States Court of International Trade.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Therase LaShown Warren of distributing eight and a half

ounces of crack cocaine to a cooperating witness on July 15, 2002. Warren appeals

asserting the evidence was insufficient to convict him. Having carefully reviewed the

record in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a reasonable jury could

Appellate Case: 03-1996 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767697 
**The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

-2-

have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Warren distributed crack cocaine. See

United States v. Davis, 357 F.3d 726, 728 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review).

Evidence included testimony by the cooperating witness, testimony by the

surveillance officers, transcripts of telephone conversations between Warren and the

cooperating witness, Warren’s fingerprints on the plastic bag containing the crack

cocaine sold to the cooperating witness, and Warren’s possession of the prerecorded

buy money in his pants pocket immediately after the transaction. Any questions

about the cooperating witness’s testimony was for the jury alone to decide, and other

evidence supported the cooperating witness’s testimony. See id. Contrary to

Warren’s assertion, the officers thoroughly searched the cooperating witness and his

vehicle before the transaction occurred. 

We thus affirm Warren’s conviction.** See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1996 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2004 Entry ID: 1767697