United States v. Germany ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-50126
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JAMES WALTER GERMANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. MO-98-CR-50-ALL
--------------------
October 6, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
James Walter Germany appeals his conviction for conspiracy
to distribute a controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 846, two counts
of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance,
21 U.S.C. § 841, and possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922.
Germany argues that the district court abused its discretion
by refusing to instruct the jury that intoxication could be
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-50126
-2-
considered in determining whether Germany had the specific intent
to distribute a controlled substance or participate in a
conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. The district
court refused to give the instruction based on its erroneous
belief that the crimes for which Germany was being tried were
general intent crimes. Distribution of a controlled substance
and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance are specific,
rather than general, intent crimes. See United States v.
Cartwright, 6 F.3d 294, 303 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v.
Kaufman, 858 F.2d 994, 1000 (5th Cir. 1988). However, Germany
has not shown the district court abused its discretion by
refusing to give that instruction because he did not produce
evidence at trial showing that his intoxicated condition rendered
him unable to form the required specific intent for these crimes.
See Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 62 (1988); United
States v. Stowell, 953 F.2d 188, 189 (5th Cir. 1992); see also
United States v. Tello, 9 F.3d 1119, 1128 (5th Cir. 1993) (court
of appeals may affirm district court on any valid ground
supported by the record). The district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.