United States v. Goodley

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 2, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-50579
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTWAN FONTAIN GOODLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:04-CR-124-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Antwan Fontain Goodley appeals his jury trial conviction
for possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of
cocaine base within one thousand feet of an elementary school.
Goodley argues that the evidence was not sufficient to support
his conviction, that his trial counsel was ineffective, and that
the district court erred in denying his objections made pursuant
to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) to the prosecutor’s
peremptory challenges.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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. 05-50579
-2-
Evidence was presented at trial that Goodley admitted that
the drugs found in the house belonged to him and that he intended
to sell them to third parties. The evidence showed that the
residence was located within 1000 feet of an elementary school.
There was also testimony that the seized drugs weighed more than
five grams and that their diminished weight several months later
was due to evaporation of the water in the controlled substance.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict,
a rational trier of fact could have determined that Goodley
possessed with intent to distribute more than five grams of
cocaine in an area within one thousand feet of a school. See
United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543-44 (5th Cir.
1998); 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), § 860.
Goodley’s argument made for the first time on appeal that he
possessed the drugs for personal use cannot be resolved by plain
error review. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732
(1993); United States v. Alvarado-Saldivar, 62 F.3d 697, 700 (5th
Cir. 1995).
The district court did not err in denying the Batson
challenge because the prosecutor’s belief that an employed
individual would be a preferable juror because of his interest in
the community is a race-neutral reason for challenging a juror.
See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-65 (1991).
Goodley did not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel in the district court. The record is not sufficiently
No. 05-50579
-3-
developed to permit direct review of this claim. See Massaro v.
United States, 538 U.S. 500, 508 (2003). Goodley’s conviction is
AFFIRMED.