Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03578/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03578-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gailyn Bass
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3578

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska

Gailyn Bass, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: May 18, 2004

Filed: July 6, 2004 

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gailyn Bass appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for

the District of Nebraska upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of conspiring to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture

containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court sentenced

Bass to 210 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. For reversal Bass

argues (1) there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction; (2) the Assistant

United States Attorney (AUSA) asked a witness improper questions relating to race

Appellate Case: 03-3578 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/06/2004 Entry ID: 1784535 
-2-

during the trial; and (3) the district court erred in including in his criminal history

score a void juvenile conviction. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

We conclude that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the verdict, was

sufficient to support Bass’s conviction. See United States v. Ramirez, 350 F.3d 780,

783 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review). Eight witnesses testified about Bass’s

involvement in the sale of crack cocaine and the amounts they saw him buy or sell.

Although all of the witnesses testified pursuant to plea agreements in exchange for

lighter sentences, the jury was aware of the plea agreements and any inconsistencies

between the witnesses’ trial testimony and prior statements. See United States v.

Rodriguez-Mendez, 336 F.3d 692, 696 (8th Cir. 2003) (credibility of witnesses is to

be determined by jury); United States v. Tensley, 334 F.3d 790, 794-95 (8th Cir.

2003) (testimony of co-conspirators with plea agreements was sufficient to support

jury’s determination of guilt on conspiracy charge).

We also conclude that no plain error occurred when, on redirect examination,

the AUSA asked Sergeant Michael Garnett whether “crack cocaine distribution tends

to take place in Lincoln, Nebraska, in the African-American community.” See United

States v. Griffith, 301 F.3d 880, 883 (8th Cir. 2002) (plain error is unobjected-to error

so prejudicial as to have affected defendant’s substantial rights, resulting in

miscarriage of justice), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1225 (2003). Bass’s counsel had

questioned Garnett on cross-examination about the use of undercover officers as an

investigative tool in drug cases. The AUSA then elicited Garnett’s response to the

above question--and his confirmation that no African-American undercover officers

worked in the Lincoln narcotics unit during the relevant time--in an apparent effort

to show why undercover officers had not been used in Bass’s case. Cf. United States

v. Womochil, 778 F.2d 1311, 1315 (8th Cir. 1985) (when cross-examination results

in false impression left on jury, government may clarify issue on redirect even if it

includes presentation of otherwise inadmissible evidence).

Appellate Case: 03-3578 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/06/2004 Entry ID: 1784535 
-3-

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not clearly err by including

Bass’s juvenile conviction in his criminal history score without certifying to the

Nebraska Supreme Court a question regarding the validity of the conviction. See

United States v. Paden, 330 F.3d 1066, 1067 (8th Cir. 2003) (standard of review);

United States v. Strange, 102 F.3d 356, 362 (8th Cir. 1996) (defendant is not

permitted to challenge prior conviction in federal sentencing proceeding unless

defendant claims previous conviction was obtained following unconstitutionally

unsound waiver of counsel).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3578 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/06/2004 Entry ID: 1784535