Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01853/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01853-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel N. Lloyd
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. 05-1853

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Daniel N. Lloyd, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 21, 2005

Filed: October 14, 2005

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel N. Lloyd was convicted of a single count of conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, in violation

of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. At sentencing, the district court1

 sustained a motion for

a downward departure based on Lloyd's criminal history and sentenced him to the

mandatory minimum penalty of 120 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Lloyd's

principal arguments are that the witnesses against him were not credible and that they

Appellate Case: 05-1853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/14/2005 Entry ID: 1963262
-2-

had a motive to fabricate their testimony in hopes of a reduced sentence for their

cooperation. He argues that there was no clear evidence of his involvement in any

drug conspiracy, but rather the evidence proved only that witnesses were anxious to

reduce the time they would spend in a federal penitentiary by testifying against him.

We review the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to the

jury's guilty verdict and accept as established all reasonable inferences supporting the

verdict. United States v. Padilla-Pena, 129 F.3d 457, 464 (8th Cir. 1997); United

States v. Bascope-Zurita, 68 F.3d 1057, 1060 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v.

Resnick, 745 F.2d 1179, 1185 (8th Cir. 1984). To convict Lloyd of conspiracy, the

government was required to prove a conspiracy existed, the defendant knew of the

conspiracy, and he knowingly became a part of it. United States v. Jensen, 141 F.3d

830, 833 (8th Cir. 1998).

Several witnesses testified at Lloyd's trial. The first witness, Kevin Birdine,

testified that he sold cocaine to Lloyd on a weekly basis, totaling approximately one

ounce of crack cocaine during a four-month period in 2003. He also testified that he

saw Lloyd sell cocaine, and that he received money for coordinating sales between

Lloyd and buyers. Deandre Robinson testified that he sold crack cocaine to Lloyd on

three occasions, totaling approximately seventeen and one-half grams. Jerry Coleman

testified that he sold Lloyd approximately one and one-half ounces of crack cocaine

in April 2002, and that Lloyd told him he sold crack cocaine to other people. Johnny

Brown testified that he sold crack cocaine to Lloyd four or five times a week from

June 2003 until Brown was indicted on April 13, 2004. Brown further testified that

he was aware of at least one occasion that he sold Lloyd crack cocaine which Lloyd

subsequently resold to others. Omaha police officer Joe Baudler arrested Lloyd and

others, and testified that a rock of cocaine was found on Lloyd at the police station.

We agree there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict of

conspiracy on the part of Lloyd to sell crack cocaine. Lloyd is correct in asserting

Appellate Case: 05-1853 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/14/2005 Entry ID: 1963262
-3-

that a number of the witnesses had been convicted of drug offenses and that their

motives in testifying might be questioned, but this matter was comprehensively

addressed by Lloyd’s counsel through cross-examination. The issue of credibility is

primarily one for the jury to determine. United States v. Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984,

989 (8th Cir. 2002). The jury heard and assessed the testimony and determined

beyond a reasonable doubt that Lloyd was guilty of participating in the conspiracy to

distribute crack cocaine. We find no error in that determination.

On the basis of this record, we are convinced that there was sufficient evidence

to justify Lloyd's conviction, and the trial court did not err in denying Lloyd's motion

for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's evidence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1853 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/14/2005 Entry ID: 1963262