United States v. Cooper , 71 F. App'x 298 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                               United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                July 17, 2003
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                          Clerk
    ____________________
    No. 02-60701
    ____________________
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    BILLY D COOPER, also known as Sealed Defendant 1, also known
    as “Rabbit”
    Defendant - Appellant
    _________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    Cause No. 4:01-CR-8-ALL
    _________________________________________________________________
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and BARKSDALE, Circuit
    Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Defendant–Appellant, Billy D. Cooper, was convicted of (1)
    conspiracy     to    commit:   carjacking    in   violation   of    
    18 U.S.C. § 2119
    (3), use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c), and transportation of a stolen
    vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2312
    ,
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    all in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
     (count one); (2) carjacking in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2119
    (3) and 2 (count two); (3) use of a
    firearm      in    relation         to   a    crime     of    violence        (carjacking)    in
    violation         of    
    18 U.S.C. §§ 924
    (c)        and    2   (count    three);    (4)
    transportation of a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce in
    violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 2312
     and 2 (count four); and (5) being a
    felon   in    possession            of   a    firearm    in        violation     of   
    18 U.S.C. §§ 922
    (g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (count five).
    On appeal, Cooper argues that the district court erred in
    denying his motion to suppress his confessions given on August 20,
    1999 (including a videotaped confession) for the reason that the
    confessions            were   not    made     voluntarily.              The    district    court
    conducted thorough evidentiary hearings on the admissibility of the
    confessions.            The district court’s findings, which were based on
    credibility determinations, that Cooper’s arrest was valid and his
    confessions were voluntary and knowing, were amply supported by the
    record.
    Cooper also challenges the district court’s decision to admit
    the videotaped statement of Cooper’s co-defendant, James Frye,
    whose case had been severed from Cooper’s.                               Cooper objected at
    trial to the admission of Frye’s statement, pursuant to FED. R.
    EVID. 801(d)(2)(E), arguing that it was not made in furtherance of
    the conspiracy.               This claim is not raised on appeal.                      Instead,
    Cooper focuses exclusively on the second objection he made in
    federal district court, his argument that introduction of Frye’s
    2
    statement violates the Confrontation Clause.        Cooper cites Bruton
    v. United States, 
    391 U.S. 123
     (1968), in support of this claim.
    “This court has interpreted Bruton to provide that a defendant’s
    Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is violated when (1) several
    co-defendants are tried jointly, (2) one defendant’s extrajudicial
    statement is used to implicate another defendant in the crime, and
    (3) the confessor does not take the stand and is thus not subject
    to cross-examination.”      United States v. Jobe, 
    101 F.3d 1046
    , 1066
    (5th Cir. 1996) (quotations and citations omitted). Bruton clearly
    does not apply since Fry and Cooper were tried separately.          Nor is
    it clear that Cooper even tried to call Frye as a witness to
    question him about the statement.          Cooper’s argument that the
    admission of Frye’s videotaped statement deprived him of his right
    to confront Frye is meritless.
    Finally, Cooper challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
    support his conviction of carjacking in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2119
    (3).    There is more than enough evidence to support that
    conviction.
    The    judgment   of   conviction   and   sentence   of   Cooper   are
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-60701

Citation Numbers: 71 F. App'x 298

Judges: Barksdale, Higginbotham, King, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 7/17/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023