United States v. Phillips ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                                     No. 97-4650
    TYRONE DUNCAN PHILLIPS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.
    Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.
    (CR-96-165)
    Submitted: May 26, 1998
    Decided: June 23, 1998
    Before ERVIN and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and
    BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Michael R. Cline, MICHAEL R. CLINE LAW OFFICES, Charleston,
    West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attor-
    ney, Ray M. Shepard, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington,
    West Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Appellant Tyrone Duncan Phillips appeals from his conviction
    after a jury trial, of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent
    to distribute cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 846
     (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and causing others to possess with
    intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 
    21 U.S.C.A. § 841
    (a)(1)
    (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and 
    18 U.S.C.A. § 2
     (West 1994 & Supp.
    1998). We affirm.
    The Government's evidence at trial established that Phillips ran a
    cocaine distribution network for several years, purchasing cocaine
    from New York and distributing it in Huntington, West Virginia. Dur-
    ing the course of the conspiracy, Phillips was in an automobile acci-
    dent which left him paralyzed. However, he continued to participate
    in the drug distribution activities and let his father take over the day-
    to-day operations of the business.
    At trial, Phillips took the stand in his own defense. During his
    direct testimony, Phillips denied any involvement with cocaine sales.
    He denied operating a drug business, and stated that he had only seen
    cocaine once in his life, in November of 1994, when he asked Luis
    Mercado, a named co-conspirator, to show him some. During cross-
    examination and in an attempt to impeach Phillips' testimony, the
    Government questioned Phillips about statements he had made to FBI
    agents regarding a July 1993 trip Phillips took to New York with his
    associate Todd Leonard. On that trip, Phillips and Leonard trans-
    ported automatic weapons for delivery to Mercado, in exchange for
    cocaine. Defense counsel objected to the questioning about the
    exchange, but the district court overruled the objection. The Govern-
    ment was then allowed to ask Phillips whether he had told FBI agents
    in a 1994 interview that he saw one-half kilogram of cocaine on that
    occasion. Phillips denied making this statement.
    2
    Following the guilty verdict, the district court sentenced Phillips to
    120 months' imprisonment. On appeal, Phillips contends that the dis-
    trict court abused its discretion by admitting the testimony regarding
    the 1993 guns for drugs exchange.
    We review the district court's evidentiary ruling for an abuse of
    discretion. See United States v. Zandi, 
    769 F.2d 229
    , 236 (4th Cir.
    1985). Because Phillips denied having dealt drugs and denied having
    seen cocaine other than on one occasion, it was permissible for the
    Government to question him regarding the 1993 guns for drugs
    exchange. See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b); United States v. Williams, 
    986 F.2d 86
    , 89 (4th Cir. 1993). Consequently, the district court did not
    abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence.
    We affirm Phillips' conviction. We dispense with oral argument
    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
    materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 97-4650

Filed Date: 6/23/1998

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021