* 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. 07-60972

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTHONY HOWARD, also known as Killoid

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville

Case No. 4:06-CR-166-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Howard appeals his jury conviction for four counts of distribution

of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). He argues that jury selection

was performed unconstitutionally and that there was insufficient evidence to

support his conviction. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Howard argues that the district court erroneously denied his challenges

for cause to certain jurors, he was forced to use his peremptory challenges, and

those were inadequate to prevent the seating of a biased juror. This series of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 17, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60972

1 Howard additionally argues that the size of the jury pool was inadequate to select an

impartial jury.

2

events boils down to a single cognizable legal claim.1 A district court’s erroneous

refusal to grant a defendant’s challenge for cause justifies reversal only if the

defendant establishes that the jury which actually sat to decide his guilt or

innocence was not impartial. United States v. Wharton, 320 F.3d 526, 535 (5th

Cir. 2003). We review the district court’s rulings on challenges for cause for

manifest abuse of discretion. Id.

Arguing that the jury was not impartial, Howard points to one juror, John

Carpenter, who stated a belief that his brother and sister used drugs. Howard

argues that Carpenter’s experiences with drugs “color[ed] his ability to be a fair,

indifferent, and impartial juror.” In response to questioning by the court,

Carpenter stated that these experiences would not affect him in this case and

that he could be fair and impartial. Additionally, Howard did not challenge

Carpenter for cause at jury selection. See Beck v. Washington, 369 U.S. 541,

557–58 (1962) (“The fact that petitioner did not challenge for cause any of the

jurors so selected is strong evidence that he was convinced the jurors were not

biased . . . .”). Even if the district court abused its discretion in denying

Howard’s challenges for cause, an impartial jury sat in Howard’s case.

Howard additionally argues that the jury verdict was against the

overwhelming weight of the evidence and that the evidence is insufficient as a

matter of law to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This court will not

disturb a jury’s verdict unless the record, viewed in the light most favorable to

the verdict, demonstrates that a rational jury could not have found each of the

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. v. Olis, 429 F.3d 540,

542 (5th Cir. 2005).

Howard asserts that Charles Perkins, a confidential informant who

performed controlled buys from Howard and testified against him, was not
No. 07-60972

3

credible because Perkins admitted to using crack cocaine within several days of

trial, sold marijuana at some point in time, and could not remember being

arrested for possession of crack cocaine. Although Perkins provided the

principal testimony against Howard, his testimony was corroborated by the

testimony of DEA agents and Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics agents and by

physical evidence, including audio recordings of meetings between Howard and

Perkins, video recording of a meeting between Howard and Perkins, and

Howard’s cell phone records. A reasonable jury could easily have found Howard

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the charged crimes.

For the foregoing reasons, Howard’s conviction is AFFIRMED.