Filed: Aug. 28, 2002
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-50036 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARRELL LAMAR STRICKLAND, also known as Darryl Lamar Strickland, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-2006-1-DB - August 23, 2002 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Darrell Strickland appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with i
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 02-50036 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DARRELL LAMAR STRICKLAND, also known as Darryl Lamar Strickland, Defendant-Appellant. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-2006-1-DB - August 23, 2002 Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:1 Darrell Strickland appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with in..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50036
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DARRELL LAMAR STRICKLAND, also known as Darryl Lamar Strickland,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-00-CR-2006-1-DB
--------------------
August 23, 2002
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Darrell Strickland appeals his conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms
of marijuana and money laundering. He argues that his
constitutional right to a fair trial was violated when the jury
venire saw him enter the courtroom in handcuffs. He also
challenges the district court’s determination that he was a leader
in the offense.
1
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
The jury venire’s brief glimpse of Strickland entering the
courtroom in handcuffs did not violate his due process right to a
fair trial, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying his motion for a mistrial. See United States v. Daniel,
813 F.2d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 1987); United States v. Webster,
750
F.2d 307, 331 (5th Cir. 1984). The record supports the district
court’s determination that Strickland was a leader in the offense,
and the court’s finding was not clear error. See United States v.
Dadi,
235 F.3d 945, 951-52 (5th Cir. 2000).
AFFIRMED.
2