Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01522/USCOURTS-ca8-10-01522-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Leroy Strait
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-1522

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

*

James Leroy Strait, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Straity, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: July 27, 2010

Filed: July 30, 2010

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Strait appeals his drug conviction entered by the District Court1

following a jury trial. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the evidence was insufficient

to support the conviction because the testimony of the cooperating witnesses was

unreliable and inconsistent.

Appellate Case: 10-1522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688623
-2-

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, "viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and giving it the benefit of all

reasonable inferences." United States v. Pruneda, 518 F.3d 597, 605 (8th Cir. 2008).

At trial, the leader of a methamphetamine operation testified to the significant

amounts of methamphetamine manufactured for distribution on his farm over several

years and to Strait’s years of participation in that process. This testimony was

corroborated by five cooperating witnesses. We conclude that the evidence was

sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Strait was guilty of conspiring to

manufacture and distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. See United

States v. Davis, 471 F.3d 938, 947 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that to establish a

conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, the government must

prove that there was an agreement to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine

and that the defendant knew of the conspiracy and intentionally joined it). It was the

jury's duty to assess the cooperating witnesses' credibility; resolve any inconsistencies

in their testimony; and determine the impact, if any, of the witnesses' cooperation

agreements on their testimony. See United States v. Hodge, 594 F.3d 614, 618 (8th

Cir.) (reiterating that a jury’s credibility determinations are "well-nigh unreviewable"

because the jury is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and

resolve inconsistent testimony; it is the jury's prerogative to credit or discount a

government witness based on that witness's cooperation agreement), cert. denied, 78

U.S.L.W. 3714 (U.S. June 7, 2010) (No. 09-10629). 

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the District Court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 10-1522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/30/2010 Entry ID: 3688623