United States v. Crutchfield ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60280
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
BRIAN CRUTCHFIELD, also know as
Brain Crutchfield; JUNIUS JOHNSON, JR.,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
(3:00-CR-91-4-LS)
--------------------
March 15, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendants-Appellants Brian Crutchfield and Junius Johnson,
Jr., appeal their convictions for conspiracy to commit interstate
transportation of stolen property and for money laundering. They
assert that the evidence was insufficient to support their
convictions. As to Crutchfield, we hold that the evidence was
sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find he knew that the
potato chips and snacks supplied to them were stolen. See United
States v. Romero-Cruz, 201 F.3d 374, 376 (5th Cir. 2000). As to
Johnson, he has failed to show that his conviction resulted in a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Barton, 257 F.3d
433, 439 (5th Cir. 2001).
Crutchfield contends that the indictment was returned more
than five years after he withdrew from the conspiracy, so that his
prosecution was barred. Because Crutchfield did not raise this
issue at trial, it is waived and cannot be reviewed on appeal. See
United States v. Arky, 938 F.2d 579, 581-82 (5th Cir. 1991).
Crutchfield also asserts that the district court abused its
discretion in allowing a government witness to testify as an
expert. As there was no objection to the witness’s testimony at
trial, review is for plain error. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S.
725, 732 (1993). Crutchfield has failed to show that the expert’s
testimony violated FED. R. EVID. 704.
Johnson’s contention that the district court abused its
discretion in allowing Deborah Mack to testify fails. He has not
shown abuse of discretion. See United States v. Elam, 678 F.2d
1234, 1253 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Brock, 833 F.2d 519,
521-22 (5th Cir. 1987).
Johnson also contends that the district court erred in failing
to give a limiting instruction regarding his failure to file income
taxes during the time of the conspiracy. As Johnson did not
request such an instruction, review is for plain error. United
States v. Dupre, 117 F.3d 810, 816-17 (5th Cir. 1997). Johnson
cannot show that the introduction of the evidence affected his
substantial rights. See FED. R. EVID. 404(b); United States v.
Parziale, 947 F.2d 123, 129 (5th Cir. 1991).
2
Johnson asserts that the district court erred in crafting a
restitution order that required him to pay over $5,000 per month.
The order does not require such excessive payments; in fact,
Johnson was not required to pay the entire restitution amount by
the end of his supervised release term. Compare United States v.
Calbat, 266 F.3d 358,366 (5th Cir. 2001). He has failed to show
plain error in the district court’s order.
For the foregoing reasons, both convictions and sentences are
AFFIRMED.
3