No. 98-30143
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30143
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANDRE PATRICK STAGGERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 97-CR-35-A
- - - - - - - - - -
May 28, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Andre Staggers appeals his conviction and sentence after being
found guilty of conspiring to violate the federal narcotics laws,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Staggers first argues that there
was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We review
Staggers’ sufficiency claim only for plain error because he failed
to renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of all
evidence. See United States v. McCarty, 36 F.3d 1349, 1358 (5th
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-30143
-2-
Cir. 1994). Under the plain error standard, this court will
reverse only if there is a manifest miscarriage of justice. Id.
A review of the record indicates that there was sufficient evidence
to support Staggers’ conviction. Because the record contains
evidence pointing to Staggers’ guilt and because that evidence is
not “so tenuous that a conviction would be shocking,” no
miscarriage of justice has occurred. See id. (internal quotations
and citation omitted).
Staggers also argues that the district court erred in imposing
a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on his
false testimony at trial. He contends that some jurors are
predisposed to convict drug traffickers without proof beyond a
reasonable doubt. He also contends that an enhancement for
obstruction of justice is inappropriate when a defendant’s
conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence. Staggers’
contentions are meritless. He has cited no authority to show that
the district court clearly erred in imposing a two-level
enhancement for obstruction of justice. Accordingly, the district
court’s finding must be upheld. See United States v. Gray, 105
F.3d 956, 972 (5th Cir. 1997) (upholding two-level enhancement for
obstruction of justice based on defendant’s false testimony at
trial because defendant cited no case law to show that the district
court’s finding was in error).
Finally, Staggers contends that he was entitled to the
benefits of the “safety valve” provision. This contention is also
without merit. Staggers was not entitled to the benefits of the
safety valve provision because, as the district court found, he has
No. 98-30143
-3-
not shown that he truthfully provided the Government with all
information and evidence regarding his offense of conviction. See
U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(5) & comment. (n.3); cf. United States v.
Flanagan, 87 F.3d 121, 125 n.3 (5th Cir. 1996)(stating that
defendant may have satisfied burden of providing the Government
with all information and evidence regarding the offense when he
“acknowledged his participation and involvement in the instant
offense” in connection with accepting responsibility).
AFFIRMED.