[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 05-16533 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 12, 2007
________________________
THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-60072-CR-JIC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ORIN CORT,
a.k.a. Tallman,
DONOVAN WALTERS,
a.k.a. Steel,
JEHSON JESSIAH,
a.k.a. Jason,
PRINCE TAYLOR,
DERRICK THOMPSON,
a.k.a. Brown Boy,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(February 12, 2007)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants, Orin Cort, Donovan Walters, Jehson Jessiah, Prince Taylor, and
Derrick Thompson, appeal their convictions and sentences for conspiracy to
import into the United States at least five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 963, and conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute at least five
kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After hearing oral
argument, considering the parties’ briefs, and reviewing the record on appeal, we
find no reversible error.
Cort, Walters, Jessiah, and Thompson contend the Government’s evidence
was insufficient to support their convictions. We review de novo whether the
evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict, viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the Government. United States v. Miles,
290 F.3d 1341,
1355 (11th Cir. 2002). After a thorough review of the record, we conclude the
evidence was sufficient to support each of the convictions.
Cort, Walters, Jessiah, and Thompson also contend the district court abused
its discretion by admitting eight kilograms of cocaine into evidence. “Evidentiary
rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Range,
94 F.3d
614, 620 (11th Cir. 1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion by
admitting the eight kilograms of cocaine found on the Discovery.
2
Cort, Walters, Jessiah, and Thompson further contend the district court
erred by failing to repeat to the jury its instruction about demonstrative exhibits.
We review objections that were not raised at trial for plain error. United States v.
Toussaint,
84 F.3d 1406, 1407 (11th Cir. 1996). The district court instructed the
jury on demonstrative exhibits at the time the exhibits were used and did not
plainly err by not repeating its explanation during the jury instructions.
Jessiah alone contends the district court erred by admitting his post-arrest
statements.1 We review a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress under a
mixed standard; we review the district court’s findings of fact under the clearly
erroneous standard and the district court’s application of law to those facts de
novo. United States v. Gil,
204 F.3d 1347, 1350 (11th Cir. 2000). The district
court did not err by adopting the magistrate judge’s findings of fact, which were
not clearly erroneous. Further, there was no error in the district court’s application
of law to those facts.
Jessiah also contends the district court abused its discretion by denying his
motion for mistrial. We review a district court’s refusal to grant a mistrial for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Perez,
30 F.3d 1407, 1410 (11th Cir. 1994).
1
Jessiah also asserted a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which is not addressed
by this Court. See United States v. Perez-Tosta,
36 F.3d 1552, 1563 (11th Cir. 1994).
3
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jessiah’s motion for
mistrial.
Jessiah further contends the district court erred by applying an obstruction
of justice enhancement to his sentence. In reviewing a district court’s imposition
of a sentence enhancement for obstruction of justice, we review factual findings
for clear error and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to those facts de
novo. United States v. Uscinski,
369 F.3d 1243, 1246 (11th Cir. 2004). The
district court did not clearly err by finding Jessiah lied while under oath and did
not err by applying the obstruction of justice sentence enhancement.
Each Appellant challenges his sentence based on the quantity of cocaine the
district court used to calculate the Guidelines ranges.2 “We review a sentencing
court’s drug quantity determination for clear error.” United States v. Mertilus,
111
F.3d 870, 873 (11th Cir. 1997). Our review of the district court’s application of
the Sentencing Guidelines is for plain error when an appellant did not object at
sentencing. United States v. Rodriguez,
398 F.3d 1291, 1296 (11th 2005). When
an appellant preserved the objection, we review the claim de novo. United States
v. Ellis,
419 F.3d 1189, 1192 (11th Cir. 2005). The district court did not err by
2
Taylor also challenged an alleged enhancement for a supervisory role, but the district
court upheld his objection at sentencing and did not impose the enhancement.
4
imposing a sentence based on a quantity of cocaine the district court determined
by a preponderance of the evidence because the sentences were within the
statutory maximum for the crimes for which the jury found Appellants guilty.
AFFIRMED.
5
