United States v. Whitfield

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50177
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
IVORY WHITFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-01-CR-198-2
--------------------
December 23, 2002
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ivory Whitfield appeals his conviction and sentence for
aiding and abetting and in possession with intent to distribute
in excess of 100 kilograms of marijuana. R. 1, 5-6. Whitfield
asserts that the district court abused its discretion in
admitting hearsay testimony, expert testimony, and a Western
Union receipt. See United States v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d
863, 869 (5th Cir. 1998). If an abuse of discretion is found,
we review the error under the harmless error doctrine. United
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-50177
-2-
States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir. 1996). Whitfield
has not shown that the district court abused it discretion in
admitting any of the challenged evidence. Bourjaily v. United
States, 483 U.S. 171, 181 (1987); United States v. Washington,
44 F.3d 1271, 1283 (5th Cir. 1995). Additionally, Whitfield
confirms in his brief that he confessed to possessing the
marijuana at the time of his arrest. The evidence of Whitfield’s
guilt is overwhelming and, if there had been any error in
admitting the evidence in question, it was harmless.
Whitfield argues that the district court erred by failing
to decrease his offense level for acceptance of responsibility
because he confessed his involvement at the time of his arrest.
This argument is unpersuasive because part of his defense at
trial was the suggestion that he made no such confession. The
district court did not err in denying a reduction. See United
States v. Nguyen, 190 F.3d 656, 659 (5th Cir. 1999).
Whitfield argues that the district court erred by not
reducing his offense level for a minimal role in the offense of
conviction. Whitfield was trusted with sole custody of the large
and valuable shipment of marijuana. Based on this fact, the
district court was not clearly erroneous in denying the offense
level reduction. United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 757
(5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.