United States v. Jorge Rodriquez Reyes , 144 F. App'x 50 ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 11, 2005
No. 04-10048
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 03-00306-CR-CO-NE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JORGE RODRIQUEZ REYES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(August 11, 2005)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Rodriquez Reyes appeals his convictions for possession with intent to
distribute more than 50 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)1(B)(viii), and conspiring to distribute more
than 500 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine, in violation of
21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Reyes asserts the district court erred in denying his motion for
judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support his
convictions. Reyes does not claim the Government failed to produce evidence on
any element of the offenses; rather, he contends the testimony of the co-
conspirators was not credible, was unbelievable on its face, and that under no
construction of the evidence could the jury have found Reyes guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt.
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence
and all reasonable inferences in favor of the government and the jury’s verdict.
United States v. Garcia, 405 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 2005). Reyes’s
conviction must be affirmed unless, under no reasonable construction of the
evidence, could the jury have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
“Credibility determinations are the exclusive province of the jury.” United
States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1325 (11th Cir. 1997). “For testimony of a
government witness to be incredible as a matter of law, it must be unbelievable on
2
its face.” Id. (internal quotations and citation omitted). “It must be testimony as to
facts that the witness physically could not have possibly observed or events that
could not have occurred under the laws of nature.” Id. (quotations and citation
omitted). Moreover, judgment of acquittal is not required “because the
government’s case includes testimony by ‘an array of scoundrels, liars, and
brigands’.” United States v. Hewitt, 663 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir.1981) (citation
omitted).
Reyes’s arguments with respect to the inconsistency and incredibility of the
witnesses are without merit. By their verdict, the jury found the testimony of the
Government’s witnesses credible. See Calderon, 127 F.3d at 1325. None of
Reyes’s claims regarding inconsistencies or bias constitute evidence the testimony
was “unbelievable on its face” or contained facts or events that could not have
possibly occurred. Based on the testimony, the jury could reasonably conclude
Reyes conspired to distribute and possessed with the intent to distribute the
methamphetamine charged. Thus, the district court did not err by denying Reyes’s
motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence.
AFFIRMED.
3