United States v. Jennings ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50652
Summary Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOHN W. JENNINGS,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. EP-94-CR-264
- - - - - - - - - -
June 20, 1996
Before KING, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
John W. Jennings argues that the district court plainly
erred in instructing the jury on "constructive and joint
possession." He further argues that the district court failed to
make the findings required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1) with
respect to his sentencing entrapment objection to the presentence
report. Jennings also argues that the district court erred in
denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-50652
-2-
acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
We have reviewed the record, including the transcripts of
the trial and the sentencing hearing, and the briefs of the
parties and affirm Jennings' conviction. The district court did
not commit plain error in instructing the jury on "constructive
and joint possession" because the instruction clearly and
correctly stated the law as applied to the facts of the case.
United States v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d 946, 950 (5th Cir.
1990).
The district court did not violate Rule 32(c)(1) by failing
to make specific findings on the issue of sentencing entrapment
because Jennings failed to clearly present that issue to the
district court. See United States v. Rodriguez, 897 F.2d 1324,
1327-28 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 857 (1990).
The district court did not err in denying Jennings' motion
for judgment of acquittal because, viewing the evidence in a
light most favorable to the verdict, a rational trier of fact
could have found that Jennings was guilty of possession with the
intent to distribute cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. United
States v. Gallo, 927 F.2d 815, 820 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.