Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benny JOHNSON, also known as Lil Benny, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-26
Citations: 164 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 04-61177
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benny JOHNSON, also known as Lil Benny, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 500–502

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benny JOHNSON, also known as Lil Benny, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-61177.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 26, 2006.
Charles Wiley Spillers, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Robert W. Davis, Jr., Tupelo, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
A review of the evidence indicates that a rational jury could have found the evidence sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson possessed a firearm in relation to or in furtherance of the drug-trafficking offenses. See United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 414-15 (5th Cir.2000). Johnson was arrested while climbing out of the rear window of the house in which cocaine base was being sold. After his arrest, police found an unusual bullet in his pocket. Inside the house, police found a handgun, loaded with the same unusual bullets that Johnson had in his pocket, on the floor just below the window out of which Johnson was climbing. Police also found a brown paper bag containing approximately 57.72 grams of cocaine base lying on the ground near Johnson's right foot. Codefendant Mario Blanch testified that he had seen Johnson with the handgun on the night of the search. In view of this evidence, a rational jury could have found that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson possessed the handgun in relation to or in furtherance of the drug-trafficking offenses. See Pruneda-Gonzalez, 953 F.2d at 193.
The evidence was also sufficient to support Johnson's convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base. In addition to the evidence already noted, the arresting officer testified that he noticed that while Johnson was handcuffed on the ground, he was cocking his right leg back "as if to move the dope out of the way." Blanch also testified that Johnson had been selling cocaine base out of a brown paper bag just before the police arrived. Police seized firearms, ammunition, and electronic scales with white residue inside the house. In view of this evidence, a rational jury could have found that the evidence established that Johnson participated in a conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and that he possessed with intent to distribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base. See Pruneda-Gonzalez, 953 F.2d at 193.
Johnson also argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under the then mandatory United States Sentencing Guidelines held unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The Government concedes that Johnson preserved this issue for appeal. Therefore, the Government bears the burden of showing harmless error by " 'proving] beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would not have sentenced [the defendant] differently had it acted under an advisory Guidelines regime.' " United States v. Garza, 429 F.3d 165, 170 (5th Cir.2005)(quoting United States v. Pineiro, 410 F.3d 282, 284-87 (5th Cir.2005)). The Government has not met its burden as it has not cited record evidence indicating that the district court would have imposed the same sentence under an advisory Guidelines scheme. See id. .Therefore, Johnson's sentences are VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for resentencing.
CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
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.