Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50185/USCOURTS-ca5-09-50185-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Morris Allen Pardue
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50185

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MORRIS ALLEN PARDUE

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CR-200-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Morris Allen Pardue appeals his jury conviction for possession with intent

to distribute five grams or more of a mixture and substance containing a

detectable amount of cocaine base (crack cocaine) and for use of a minor to assist

in avoiding detection and apprehension in connection with the drug offense. See

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1), 861(a)(2).

Pardue argues that the district court erred when it omitted from the jury

instructions and the verdict form the “knowingly and intentionally” element of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 22, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

 Case: 09-50185 Document: 00511032229 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
No. 09-50185

2

the use-of-a-minor offense. He contends that under the instructions given, the

Government was not required to prove all of the elements of the use-of-a-minor

offense and that acquittal is mandated. Although the court corrected the jury

instructions and verdict form to include the missing element and ordered the

jury to deliberate and vote using the corrected instructions and form, Pardue

argues that district court’s error confused the jury and that the error is not

harmless.

Pardue did not object to the original instructions, and his objection to the

court’s proposed corrected instruction, “to preserve the error,” was not specific

and did not inform the court of the grounds for the objection, as is required by

Rule 30(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to preserve his objection.

Pardue did not object to either the original or the corrected verdict form.

Accordingly, review is for plain error only. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 30(d), 52(b);

United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 305-06 (5th Cir. 2009). Pardue has

not shown that the corrected instructions and form were erroneous or misled the

jury, and he has not shown that any error in the original instructions and form,

which were corrected by the district court, affected his substantial rights.

Accordingly, he has not shown plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 129

S. Ct. 1423, 1429 (2009). 

Pardue also argues that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support

the “with intent to distribute” element of his conviction for possession with

intent to distribute five grams or more of crack cocaine. Because Pardue raised

this argument in his motions for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the

Government’s case and at the close of all of the evidence, he properly preserved

his sufficiency claim for appellate review. See United States v. Floyd, 343 F.3d

363, 370 (5th Cir. 2003); FED. R. CRIM. P. 29(a).

Pardue’s argument ignores the narcotics expert’s opinion testimony that

possession of six to seven grams of crack cocaine was inconsistent with personal

use and more consistent with being a mid-level dealer. The jury also heard the

 Case: 09-50185 Document: 00511032229 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2010
No. 09-50185

3

audio tape of and testimony about the police officer’s interview with Pardue

immediately after his arrest in which, among other stories, Pardue said that he,

the minor S.B., and two other men had pooled their money and Pardue bought

a bag of crack cocaine to split among them. This evidence that Pardue intended

to split or share with the other men supports the inference that he intended to

distribute or deliver the crack cocaine by transferring some of it to others. See

21 U.S.C. § 802(8), (11). Although Pardue testified that eight grams was

consistent with his and others’ personal use and that he did not split the crack

cocaine with others, the jury was free to disbelieve this testimony. See United

States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir. 1994). We do not “review . . . the

weight of the evidence or . . . the credibility of the witnesses.” Floyd, 343 F.3d

at 370. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a

reasonable jury could conclude that the Government proved beyond a reasonable

doubt Pardue’s intent to distribute the crack cocaine.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 09-50185 Document: 00511032229 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/22/2010