IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50740
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WALTER RUBIN MAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-95-CR-309-1
- - - - - - - - - -
June 12, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Walter Rubin May appeals his conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to manufacture and to possess with intent to distribute
amphetamine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846. He contends (1) that the
district court erred in not performing an in camera review of the
Government’s materials; (2) that it abused its discretion in
limiting cross-examination of Craig Brands; (3) that it clearly
erred in basing the sentence on seven pounds of amphetamine and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 97-50740
-2-
abused its discretion in refusing to grant a hearing on the issue;
and (4) that it clearly erred in finding that May was a
leader/organizer as defined by U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).
Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities
convince us that no reversible error was committed. May’s
assertions that the Government might have Brady material indicating
that Hal Perry had instigated the setting-up of the amphetamine lab
or that the Perry brothers had manufactured amphetamine were mere
speculations rebutted by testimony adduced at trial. See Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); United States v. Dinitz, 538 F.2d
1214, 1224 (5th Cir. 1976)(en banc). The district court did not
err in not performing an in camera review.
Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in limiting
cross-examination of coconspirator Craig Brands because the jury
still had sufficient information to appraise Brands’ bias and
motives. See United States v. Payne, 99 F.3d 1273, 1280 (5th Cir.
1996).
The district court did not clearly err in its determination of
the quantity of amphetamine involved because the district court’s
account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed
in its entirety. United States v. Rogers, 1 F.3d 341, 342 (5th
Cir. 1993). Nor did the court abuse its discretion in refusing to
grant a hearing on the issue because the district court’s decision
on the appropriate procedure was made in light of its finding that
Mrs. May’s testimony could have been produced at trial and was not
No. 97-50740
-3-
and that the evidence she would have offered was rebutted by
testimony that the jury had already ruled upon. See United States
v. Narvaez, 38 F.3d 162, 165 (5th Cir. 1994).
The district court did not clearly err in imposing the
§ 3B1.1(a) four-level upward adjustment because there was an
acceptable evidentiary basis for the court’s fact finding that May,
Steven Perry, Craig Brands, J. W. Myatt, and Stuart Collison were
knowing participants in the conspiracy. See Narvaez, 38 F.3d at
166; U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n.4).
AFFIRMED.