United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 7, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 06-50292 Clerk
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ZETERAL PERKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
No. 7:05-CR-136-2
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Zeteral Perkins appeals his conviction of and sentence for
conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base and
distribution of more than 50 grams of cocaine base. He argues that
the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
a new trial; that the government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 06-50292
-2-
U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose evidence that a witness had
recanted harassment allegations in an unrelated case; and that the
evidence is insufficient to support his convictions.
The failure of the probation officer to disclose that Angela
Hutson had filed harassment charges in an unrelated matter against
an individual and later recanted those allegations does not provide
a basis for new trial. The evidence was merely impeaching, is not
material, and would not probably produce an acquittal at a new
trial. See United States v. Freeman, 77 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir.
1996). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion
by denying the motion. See United States v. Jamarillo, 42 F.3d
920, 924 (5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, although Hutson’s allegation
and recantation may have impeached her credibility, Perkins fails
to show a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding
would have been different if that information had been disclosed
before trial. See United States v. Moore, 452 F.3d 382, 387-88
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 423 (2006).
Perkins contends that the evidence did not establish that he
entered into an agreement and therefore, his conspiracy conviction
cannot stand. Hutson’s testimony and the recorded conversations
provided evidence of an agreement. Although Perkins challenges
Hutson’s credibility, credibility determinations “are to be re-
solved in favor of the verdict.” United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45
F.3d 907, 911 (5th Cir. 1995). Perkins also challenges his dis-
tribution conviction, arguing that there was no evidence that he
No. 06-50292
-3-
was connected to the crack cocaine found in Hutson’s residence.
Hutson testified that Perkins sold her the crack cocaine earlier in
the day. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable trier of
fact to find that Perkins was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
See United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.