United States v. Bradley

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-40868
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL JERMAINE BRADLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:00-CR-4-11
_________________________________________________________________
April 9, 2001
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul Jermaine Bradley pled guilty to one count of possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1). He appeals his sentence, arguing that the district
court erred by considering testimony given by Sonya Ray, a
codefendant, at a trial to which he was not a party, in assessing
the testimony given by Ray at Bradley’s sentencing hearing. He
contends that this violated his right to due process and created
the appearance of judicial impropriety.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Bradley did not raise these issues before the district court.
Therefore, we review his sentence for plain error. See FED. R.
CRIM. P. 52(b); United States v. Torres, 40 F.3d 84, 86 (5th Cir.
1994). To the extent that the district court relied on Ray’s prior
testimony in a codefendant’s trial, it considered only testimony
that was consistent with that given by Ray at Bradley’s sentencing
hearing and it referenced this testimony only with respect to
assessing Ray’s credibility. This evidence had sufficient indicia
of reliability as required by U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3, and Bradley had an
adequate opportunity to cross-examine Ray and to rebut her
assertions. Because Bradley has not established plain error, we
AFFIRM his sentence. See United States v. Morris, 46 F.3d 410 (5th
Cir. 1995); United States v. Ramirez, 963 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1992).
A F F I R M E D.
2