UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 95-50777
(Summary Calendar)
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JIMMIE A. EASTLAND, also known as
Jimmy Eastland,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Western District of Texas
(W-94-CR-2)
_______________________________________________
August 8, 1996
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jimmie A. Eastland appeals his conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He argues that the
evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that the court
erred in attributing quantities of cocaine to him for sentencing
purposes, that the court erroneously admitted into evidence a
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
coconspirator's hearsay testimony, and that the district judge
improperly reassigned the case to himself for trial.
We have reviewed the arguments and the record and find no
reversible error as to his insufficient-evidence claim. See United
States v. Bermea, 30 F.2d 1539, 1551 (5th Cir. 1994) (holding that
in reviewing sufficiency of the evidence, court must affirm if
evidence establishes that a reasonable juror could have found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), cert. denied, 115 S.
Ct. 1113, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1077 (1995). As to the argument that the
district court erred in determining the quantity of drugs
attributable to Eastland, we note that Eastland was sentenced to
the statutory minimum for conspiring to distribute five grams of
cocaine base, also known as "crack" cocaine. See 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(B). The district court's finding that Eastland was
directly involved in a drug transaction involving 5.61 grams of
"crack" cocaine is amply supported by the evidence. Therefore, any
error in the calculation of the total drugs attributable to
Eastland was harmless. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S.
193, 203, 112 S. Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1992)
(holding that any error in applying Sentencing Guidelines is
harmless unless it "affect[s] the district court's selection of the
sentence imposed"). Additionally, any error as to the admission of
allegedly hearsay testimony was harmless. See United States v. El-
Zoubi, 993 F.2d 442, 446 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that the
-2-
admission of hearsay testimony is harmful only if it substantially
impacts the jury's verdict). Finally, Eastland lacks standing to
challenge the judge's reassignment order and cannot in any event
show plain error. See United States v. Royals, 777 F.2d 1089, 1091
(5th Cir. 1985) (holding that a defendant does not have standing to
challenge the designation of a particular district judge); United
States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 163-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc)
(articulating plain error standard for unobjected-to errors), cert.
denied, 115 S. Ct. 1266, 131 L. Ed. 2d 145 (1995).
AFFIRMED.
-3-