Court Opinion

ID: 17999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:09:46+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:39.476310
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 98-60571
                           Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                  versus

YAMINAH McAFEE,

                                        Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
             for the Southern District of Mississippi
                      USDC No. 1:98-CR-3-2-PG
_________________________________________________________________

                             June 8, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Yaminah   McAfee   appeals   her   conviction    for    conspiracy   to

possess cocaine base with the intent to distribute, in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 846; possession of cocaine base with the intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); employment of a

minor to   distribute   cocaine    base,   in    violation   of   21   U.S.C.

§ 861(a)(1); and felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of

18 U.S. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).

     McAfee’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is

essentially a challenge to the jury’s credibility and weight-of-

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
the-evidence   determinations.    Since    the   testimony   of   Drug

Enforcement Administration Agent Roger Caplinger and coconspirator

Eddie Hannibal was not patently unbelievable or incredible, McAfee

has failed to show that a reasonable trier of fact could not have

found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.    United States v. Lopez, 74

F.3d 575, 578 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547,

549 (5th Cir. 1982)(en banc).

                                                    A F F I R M E D.