U.S. v. Branca, No. 81-5646
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and ANDERSON; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 677 F.2d 59 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Buddy BRANCA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 81-5646 |
| Decision Date | 24 May 1982 |
Page 59
v.
Buddy BRANCA, Defendant-Appellant.
Eleventh Circuit.
Page 60
Robert D. Schram, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Carol Wilkinson, Miami, Fla., Janis H. Kockritz, Atty., Appellate Sect., Crim. Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Buddy Branca appeals his criminal drug conviction. We begin with the facts of his case, which we present in the light most favorable to the government. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).
Samuel Tirko, a convicted felon turned Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) contact, met Jerry Barrows. Barrows told Tirko that several employees at the automobile dealership where he worked were engaged in drug trafficking. He asked whether Tirko knew anyone interested in drug purchases. Tirko said that he would make inquiries. Acting on instructions from his DEA contact, agent Robert Hilderbrand, Tirko expressed interest in a purchase and was introduced by Barrows to Paul Leonard, who explained a cocaine deal he was arranging. At one meeting Barrows and Leonard introduced Tirko to appellant Branca, describing him as the man who would arrange the deal. Branca said that his price was $60,000 per kilogram of cocaine. After further negotiations Tirko, now accompanied by Hilderbrand, was ushered into another meeting with Branca. Branca introduced a person who he said was his contact for the deal; he also noted that he had two other drug contacts. Commenting on the constant interruption of the meeting by telephone calls in which he discussed cocaine deals, Branca said that "this is the way I operate. I'm a professional. I don't beat around the bush." He complained that Hilderbrand was making the deal too difficult. At the end of the meeting, Branca gave Tirko his home telephone number and told Tirko to call if he ever wanted to buy cocaine. When Tirko did call, Branca asked to see enough money for a purchase of four to six kilograms.
Page 61
Branca was arrested, tried, and convicted on one count for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and to possess cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846.
Branca's first contention is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Cole, No. 82-5455
...Moreover, credibility choices in deciding which version of a story to believe are a matter for the jury. United States v. Branca, 677 F.2d 59, 61 (11th This circuit does not require that the evidence preclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Rather, we determine whether a reasonabl......
-
United States v. Siegelman, CR. NO. 2:05cr119-MEF
...and it is well established that "[n]ewly discovered impeaching evidence does not justify a new trial." United States v. Branca, 677 F.2d 59, 61 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Hirst, 668 F.2d 1180, 1185 (11th Cir. 1982). The materials were never in the possession of the governm......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, No. 82-8305
...were questions for the jury." United States v. De Los Santos, 625 F.2d 62, 65 (5th Cir.1980). See also, United States v. Branca, 677 F.2d 59, 61 (11th Cir.1982) ("[c]redibility choices in deciding which version of a story to believe are ... a matter for the jury, not for this Cour......
-
United States v. Siegelman, Case No. 2:05-cr-119-MEF
...law is clearly established that "[n]ewly discovered impeaching evidence does not justify a new trial." United States v. Branca, 677 F.2d 59, 61 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Hirst, 668 F.2d 1180, 1185 (11th Cir. 1982). At best, the evidence put forth in support of the motion ......
-
U.S. v. Cole, No. 82-5455
...Moreover, credibility choices in deciding which version of a story to believe are a matter for the jury. United States v. Branca, 677 F.2d 59, 61 (11th This circuit does not require that the evidence preclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Rather, we determine whether a reasonabl......
-
United States v. Siegelman, CR. NO. 2:05cr119-MEF
...and it is well established that "[n]ewly discovered impeaching evidence does not justify a new trial." United States v. Branca, 677 F.2d 59, 61 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Hirst, 668 F.2d 1180, 1185 (11th Cir. 1982). The materials were never in the possession of the governm......
-
U.S. v. Johnson, No. 82-8305
...were questions for the jury." United States v. De Los Santos, 625 F.2d 62, 65 (5th Cir.1980). See also, United States v. Branca, 677 F.2d 59, 61 (11th Cir.1982) ("[c]redibility choices in deciding which version of a story to believe are ... a matter for the jury, not for this Cour......
-
United States v. Siegelman, Case No. 2:05-cr-119-MEF
...law is clearly established that "[n]ewly discovered impeaching evidence does not justify a new trial." United States v. Branca, 677 F.2d 59, 61 (11th Cir. 1982); United States v. Hirst, 668 F.2d 1180, 1185 (11th Cir. 1982). At best, the evidence put forth in support of the motion ......