United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 28, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-11271
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LAWRENCE CAREY, also known as Winkey,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CR-73-3
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lawrence Carey appeals the 240 month sentence imposed
following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess
and distribute more than five kilograms of crack cocaine, aiding
and abetting the distribution of more than five kilograms of
crack cocaine, and distribution of more than five kilograms of
crack cocaine. Carey argues that the Government withheld
exculpatory or mitigating evidence by failing to disclose that
Michael Holt and Bertrand Bell recanted incriminating allegations
made against Carey, the Government violated the Jencks Act by not
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-11271
-2-
disclosing statements made by Krystal Simpson during plea
negotiations, and he was denied his right to confront witnesses
in light of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), because
Special Agent Coffindaffer testified regarding information from a
confidential informant.
There is no indication in the record that the Government
withheld information that Holt and Bell recanted earlier
allegations against Carey. Carey was aware of the recantations
prior to his sentencing hearing and called Holt as a witness on
his behalf. Thus, he does not show that the Government withheld
favorable evidence that would have altered the result of the
proceeding. See United States v. Moore, 452 F.3d 382, 387-88
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 423 (2006).
The Government did not violate the Jencks Act by failing to
provide statements made by Simpson to law enforcement
authorities. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b). Simpson was not called as
a Government witness. The documents were provided to Carey upon
his motion. Moreover, there is no indication in the record that
the statements were made during plea negotiations. Carey argues
in the alternative that Simpson’s statements to law enforcement
authorities were inconsistent with her testimony at the
sentencing proceeding. Carey fails to identify any
inconsistencies that support this allegation.
Carey’s argument that his confrontation rights were violated
is also without merit. “[T]here is no Crawford violation when
No. 06-11271
-3-
hearsay testimony is used at sentencing.” United States v.
Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006).
Because none of Carey’s assigned errors have merit, there is
no cumulative error that requires reversal. See United States v.
Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1052 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.