UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-10084
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
STEVEN SHAW,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(7:94-CR-013-Y)
October 31, 1995
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant, Steven Shaw, appeals his conviction following trial
for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute it. We affirm.
First, Appellant argues that the district court erred by
allowing Luz Luna, a cooperating witness, to testify that he and
Shaw had been involved in a similar drug transaction several months
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that have
no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the
basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on
the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that
Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
before the transaction in question. Luna’s testimony about the
earlier event was uncorroborated. The district court allowed the
evidence as proof of intent and instructed the jury accordingly.
Appellant contends that, since Luna’s testimony was totally
uncorroborated, its probative value was clearly outweighed by its
prejudice. We need not decide this question because, if it was
error to admit this evidence, the error was harmless by reason of
the overwhelming evidence supporting Appellant’s conviction. The
questioned evidence did not affect the Appellant’s substantial
rights. United States v. Hooker, 997 F.2d 67, 76 (5th Cir. 1993).
Appellant next argues that the Government’s evidence was
insufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that
his guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt. United States
v. Martinez, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied,
113 S.Ct. 1346 (1993). Our careful review of the record fully
convinces us that evidence of guilt was overwhelming. Appellant
was arrested during an arranged transaction with a cooperating
witness posing as seller of the drugs. Appellant met with the
supposed seller, they discussed the drugs and price, Appellant had
in his possession at arrest over $50,000 in cash and attempted to
flee the scene. The amount of drugs supposed to have been
exchanged was one kilogram, a guantity more than sufficient to
allow the jury to infer intent to distribute.
Shaw also complains that the evidence was insufficient to
rebut his entrapment defense. Again we review to determine whether
2
a reasonable jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
Appellant was predisposed to commit the offense. The testimony of
Luna, DEA Agent Lange and Police Officer Kendall showed beyond any
doubt Shaw’s willing participation in the drug transaction.
AFFIRMED.
3