United States v. White ( 1997 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40708
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DANNY RAY WHITE,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4-96-CR-4-ALL
- - - - - - - - - -
February 19, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Danny Ray White appeals from his convictions and sentence
for attempting to manufacture and manufacturing methamphetamine,
attempting to manufacture and manufacturing amphetamine,
possession of a three-neck round-bottom flask, and possession of
ethyl ether, a listed chemical. He argues that the evidence was
insufficient to support his convictions, that the district court
erred by denying his motion to suppress, that the district court
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-40708
- 2 -
abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial, and
that the district court erred by imposing a fine. Based upon the
testimony presented at trial, the jury could have found beyond a
reasonable doubt that White committed the offenses with which he
was charged. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of
the verdict, the evidence is sufficient to support White’s
convictions. See United States v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61
(5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 943 (1993). Further, the
affidavit upon which the search warrant was based was sufficient
to establish probable cause. See United States v. McKeever, 906
F.2d 129, 132 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1070(1991). Because White failed to show that a witness’s reference
to a rubber stopper seized from White’s vehicle was so
prejudicial that it had a substantial impact upon the jury’s
verdict, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying White’s motion for a mistrial. See United States v.
Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693, 699 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 944(1992). Finally, because White failed to shoulder his burden of
showing that he was unable to pay, the district court did not err
by imposing a fine. See United States v. Altamirano, 11 F.3d 52,
53-54 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.