eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2001-02

United States v. Simms ( 2001 )


Menu:
 
  •                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40456
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PAUL ANTHONY SIMMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(C-99-CR-361-1)
February 2, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Paul Anthony Simms challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
to support his jury conviction for possession of marijuana with
intent to distribute.
Simms moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the
Government’s case and rested without presenting any evidence.        See
United States v. Resio-Trejo,
    45 F.3d 907
    , 910 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995)
(defendant not required to renew judgment of acquittal motion when
rests without   introducing   any   evidence).   Thus,   we   view   the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine
whether a rational juror could have found, beyond a reasonable
doubt, the evidence established the essential elements of the
charged offense.       E.g., United States v. Ortega Reyna,
    148 F.3d 540
    , 543 (5th Cir. 1998).
For possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, the
Government must prove the defendant (1) knowingly (2) possessed
marijuana (3) with intent to distribute it.
    Id. at 543-44
    .       Simms
claims insufficient evidence to show he knowingly possessed the
marijuana; he does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
regarding the other elements.
In the light of the testimony of Natividad Ramirez, Sims’
accomplice, a rational juror could have found, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that Simms knowingly possessed the marijuana.                See, e.g.,
United   States   v.    Dixon,
    132 F.3d 192
    ,   200   (5th    Cir.   1997)
(conviction   may      rest   solely   on     uncorroborated   testimony       of
accomplice if testimony not insubstantial on its face), cert.
denied,
    523 U.S. 1096
     (1998).          Further, in addition to Ramirez’s
testimony, there was ample circumstantial evidence establishing
Simms’ guilty knowledge. See United States v. Garza,
    990 F.2d 171
    ,
174-76 (5th Cir.) (upholding conviction on similar evidence), cert.
denied,
    510 U.S. 926
     (1993).       Accordingly, the judgment is
AFFIRMED.
2