Court Opinion

ID: 2964993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:33:52.899027+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:12:13.439288
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-1471

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                 WILLIAM H. NORTHUP,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                           Stahl and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Randy Olen and John M. Cicilline on brief for appellant.
            __________     _________________
            Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney, and Stephanie S.
            __________________                              ____________
        Browne, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
        ______

                                 ____________________

                                   November 5, 1997
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________

            record, we reject defendant's contention that the evidence of

            possession  and  intent  to  distribute  was insufficient  to

            support his conviction  under 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1).   To the

            contrary,  the testimony  of  the  police  officers  and  the

            special  narcotics   officer,  along   with  the   inferences

            reasonably  to be drawn therefrom, amply supported the jury's

            verdict.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___

                                         -2-