United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 28, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-30782
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
L. C. BROOKS, also known as Bo-Jack,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-178-ALL-A
--------------------
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
L. C. Brooks appeals his conviction and sentence on two counts
of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Brooks
contends that an incriminating statement made to a jail guard was
inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment because he had not been
advised of his rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.
436 (1966), and because the statement was obtained in violation of
his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The statement was properly
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30782
-2-
admitted because it was voluntary and not the result of a custodial
“interrogation.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 478; United States v.
Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 940 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1997). Brooks’s Sixth
Amendment right to counsel had not yet attached because he was in
custody on a state drug charge and had not yet been charged with
the instant federal crime. United States v. Avants, 278 F.3d 510,
517-18 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2683 (2002).
Brooks also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence used to
convict him. Because Brooks did not renew his motion for acquittal
at either the close of all evidence or in a post-trial motion, we
review only to determine whether there has been a “manifest
miscarriage of justice.” United States v. McIntosh, 280 F.3d 479,
483 (5th Cir. 2002). We find none, as the evidence presented at
trial was sufficient for a reasonable jury to convict Brooks. See
United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 147 (5th Cir. 2000); United
States v. Sparks, 2 F.3d 574, 582 (5th Cir. 1993).
Brooks finally challenges the two-level increase in his
offense level for obstruction of justice. We believe this increase
was appropriate because Brooks intentionally made false statements
concerning a material issue while under oath at trial. See United
States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993); United States v. Storm,
36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.