UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 98-41078
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHAWN L. SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No.5:97-CR-16-1
May 5, 1999
Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Shawn L. Smith appeals his conviction, following a jury trial,
for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Maintaining that the evidence was insufficient
to support his conviction, he asserts that the Government did not
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the firearm in
question. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
jury’s verdict and accepting its credibility determinations, the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
evidence is sufficient to support Smith’s conviction because the
Government presented evidence supporting at least a plausible
inference that Smith had knowledge of, and access to, the weapon in
question. See United States v. Mergerson, 4 F.3d 337, 349 (5th
Cir. 1993); United States v. Garcia, 995 F.2d 556, 561 (5th Cir.
1993).
Smith also claims that the district court violated his
constitutional right of confrontation when it denied him the
opportunity to cross-examine a Government witness about her
previous drug use. The district court did not err in refusing to
allow questions about such use. See FED. R. EVID. 608(b); United
States v. Williams, 822 F.2d 512, 516-17 (5th Cir. 1987)(citing
Crimm v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 750 F.2d 703, 707-08 (8th Cir.
1984), which held that illegal drug use or transactions, without
more, do not show untruthfulness). Furthermore, even assuming
error, it is harmless because Smith makes no showing that the
inability to so question the witness affected his substantial
rights. United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.
1996).
AFFIRMED