United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 19, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60622
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT GOLDSBY, also known as Sealed Defendant 2,
also known as Goldsby Robert,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:00-CR-3-2-LN
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Goldsby appeals his jury-trial convictions of
conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine and distribution of crack
cocaine. Goldsby argues that the evidence was insufficient to
sustain his convictions.
Goldsby challenges the credibility of the testimony of his
co-conspirator Aaron Christian. However, Christian did not
testify as to “facts that [he] physically could not have observed
or events that could not have occurred under the laws of nature.”
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 03-60622
-2-
United States v. Gadison, 8 F.3d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1993)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, the
jury could choose whether to credit all or part of Christian’s
testimony, and that decision is not reviewable on appeal. See
id.
The evidence showed that Goldsby knowingly and voluntarily
was involved in an agreement with Christian and another man to
sell crack cocaine. Goldsby took an active role in the
conspiracy and made the arrangements to deliver the crack
cocaine. Goldsby actually possessed the drugs himself before
giving them to Christian to deliver. Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government and giving the Government
the benefit of all reasonable inferences, there is sufficient
evidence from which the jury could infer that Goldsby knowingly
participated in a conspiracy to distribute and did distribute
crack cocaine. See United States v. Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 724
(5th Cir. 1994).
Therefore, Goldsby’s challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence fails because a reasonable trier of fact could have
found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (Former 5th
Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 462 U.S. 356
(1983). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.