United States v. Jackson

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 16, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40008
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TRUMAN JACKSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:00-CR-203-1
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Truman Jackson, Jr., appeals his conviction for possession
with intent to distribute cocaine base. Jackson argues that the
district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the
indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act and in denying
his motion to suppress. He also contends that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40008
-2-
Jackson asserts that the Government did not file a timely
response to his motion for identification of the Government’s
informant and that it was not clear whether a hearing was
required on this motion. Based on these facts, he argues that
the time until this motion was decided was not excludable under
the Speedy Trial Act. The district court held a hearing and
decided the motion within 30 days of receiving the parties’
submissions. Therefore, the time during which the motion was
pending was excludable, and the Speedy Trial Act was not
violated. See Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 330
(1986); United States v. Calle, 120 F.3d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1997).
To the extent that Jackson has adequately briefed the issue
of the denial of his motion to suppress, he has not shown that
the district court erred in denying this motion. See United
States v. Pena-Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1997).
Even assuming, arguendo, that the wooded area in which the
majority of the cocaine base was found was not within the
curtilage of the residence, this does not establish error. See
United States v. McKeever, 5 F.3d 863, 867-68 (5th Cir. 1993).
Jackson argues that the evidence was insufficient to
establish his knowing possession of the drugs found outside of
his residence. Because he did not renew his motion for acquittal
at either the close of all evidence or in a post-trial motion, we
review only to determine whether there has been a manifest
miscarriage of justice. United States v. McIntosh, 280 F.3d 479,
No. 03-40008
-3-
483 (5th Cir. 2002). We find none, as the evidence presented at
trial was not so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking.
See United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 389 (5th Cir.
2001).
AFFIRMED.