United States v. Houston

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 23, 2011
No. 10-11218 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cr-00379-SCB-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllll lPlaintiff - Appellee,
versus
GEORGE HOUSTON, JR.,
a.k.a. Junior,
llllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(March 23, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After a jury trial, George Houston, Jr. was convicted of conspiring to
possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 846. Houston was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment. He now
asks that we overturn his conviction on the ground that the district court abused its
discretion by admitting into evidence his 1992 conviction for distribution of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Because we conclude that the
error, if any, in the conviction’s admission was harmless, we affirm.
At trial, the government introduced many audio and video recordings of
Houston negotiating to buy large quantities of cocaine from a confidential
informant. In one telephone recording, Houston requested a meeting with the
confidential informant’s supplier to test the purity of the cocaine. At the meeting,
the “supplier”—an undercover Drug Enforcement Agency agent — “flashed” a
kilo of cocaine, which Houston’s son tested for purity. Houston’s son testified
that he and his father had discussed purchasing 10 kilograms of cocaine and that
he went to the meeting with his father expecting that they would purchase cocaine.
The government also called Joey Dunlap, a convicted drug dealer, who
testified that Houston asked him to help Houston distribute 10 kilograms of
cocaine. The undercover DEA agent who “flashed” the kilogram of cocaine
testified that Houston agreed to buy 13 kilograms of cocaine from him and that
2
Houston said that he could “move” 30 kilograms of cocaine a week. After the
government finished examining the DEA agent, it offered into evidence Houston’s
1992 conviction for distribution of cocaine base. The conviction was admitted
over Houston’s objection. Houston argues that district court abused its discretion
by admitting his prior conviction.
We need not reach Houston’s argument, however, because we conclude that
the error, if any, was harmless. Even if a prior conviction is admitted erroneously,
reversal of a conviction is only warranted if the error had a substantial effect on
the outcome of the trial and there was no other evidence sufficient to support the
verdict. United States v. Harriston, 329 F.3d 779, 789 (11th Cir. 2003). We have
held that such error is harmless where other evidence of the defendant’s guilt is
overwhelming. Id.Here, between the testimony of the undercover DEA agent, Houston’s son,
and Dunlap, as well as the tape and video recordings of Houston’s meetings with
the confidential informant, the other evidence of Houston’s guilt is overwhelming.
Houston has not shown how the publication his prior conviction had a substantial
effect on the outcome of the proceeding. Because the other evidence of Houston’s
guilt is overwhelming, we conclude that any error caused by admitting his 1992
conviction was harmless. Accordingly, we affirm Houston’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
3