925 F2d 1472 United States v. Stansberry
925 F.2d 1472
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Earl STANSBERRY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 89-50392.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 8, 1991.*
Decided Feb. 14, 1991.
Before CHAMBERS, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
A. Limitation on Cross-examination
Bush was not a witness at trial; to the extent his motivations and character were in issue because of his participation in the investigation against defendant, the jury was fully informed: It knew that he had sold drugs in the past and that he received a deal minimizing his punishment in return for his cooperation. RT 4/25/89, at 33-36. Because the jury had sufficient information from which it could appraise Bush's motivations and biases, the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination regarding him. United States v. Feldman, 788 F.2d 544, 554 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1067 (1987).
B. Sufficiency of the Evidence
At trial, the government presented evidence that Bush called a beeper number to set up a coke deal and defendant had a beeper; Bush spoke to "Earl" about a crack deal and defendant's name is Earl; Bush and defendant did business at the location where Bush and Earl had agreed to do their crack deal; Bush was searched and had no crack when he went to do business with defendant but had an ounce of crack after he came back; Bush was watched the whole time to make sure he didn't get the crack from another source; Bush paid $600 for the crack to someone in the blue Nissan and defendant was seen in the passenger seat of that car; as the blue Nissan drove away, the police saw defendant counting money; and the blue Nissan was registered to the address where defendant lived. This is ample evidence to persuade a rational jury that defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
AFFIRMED.