Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bonnie SHEELER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-05
Citations: 227 F. App'x 535
Docket Number: No. 06-3617
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bonnie SHEELER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and BYE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 535–535

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bonnie SHEELER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-3617.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 4, 2007.
Filed: July 5, 2007.
John E. Haak, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux Falls, SD, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John Alan Schlimgen, Stuart & Gerry, Sioux Falls, SD, for Defendant-Appellant.
Bonnie Sheeler, Sioux Falls, SD, pro se.
Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and BYE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
[UNPUBLISHED]
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted Bonnie Sheeler on charges of conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana. Sheeler appeals, arguing the district court should not have admitted two co-conspirator statements into evidence.
This court reviews admission of co-conspirator statements under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) for abuse of discretion. We will reverse a district court's evidentiary ruling only if it was a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. United States v. Mahasin, 362 F.3d 1071, 1084 (8th Cir.2004). The trial court's discretion as to evidentiary rulings is particularly broad in a conspiracy trial. United States v. Dierling, 131 F.3d 722, 730 (8th Cir.1997).
Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' submissions on appeal, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the co-conspirator statements. We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable John Bailey Jones, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.