UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-50276
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
THEODORE MICHAEL BREWSTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(P-97-CR-35-1)
_________________________________________________________________
March 3, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Theodore Michael Brewster appeals his conviction and sentence
for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841. Brewster contends that the district court clearly
erred by increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 based
on the court’s finding that Brewster’s perjured testimony was
obstruction of justice; that the district court clearly erred by
finding that he was a manager or supervisor and thereby increasing
his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b); that his trial counsel
was ineffective; and that the Government violated 18 U.S.C. §
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
201(c)(2) by promising leniency to a Government witness in exchange
for his testimony at Brewster’s trial.
Brewster’s contentions are without merit. The district court
made sufficient findings that Brewster committed perjury at trial;
accordingly, the two-level increase for obstruction of justice
under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 was appropriate. See United States v.
Storm, 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S.
1084 (1995). And, the district court did not clearly err by
finding that Brewster supervised at least one other participant in
transporting loads of marijuana. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), comment.
(n.2); United States v. Mir, 919 F.2d 940, 945 (5th Cir. 1990).
Brewster’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not raised
in district court, and the record is not sufficiently developed for
us to consider it for the first time on appeal. See United States
v. Navejar, 963 F.2d 732, 735 (5th Cir. 1992). Finally, Brewster’s
contention that the Government violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2) by
promising leniency to a Government witness in exchange for his
testimony at Brewster’s trial, also raised for the first time on
appeal, is foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v.
Webster, 162 F.3d 308, 357-58 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED
- 2 -