United States v. Segura , 144 F. App'x 414 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 10, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50924
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JESSE SEGURA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:04-CR-11-1
--------------------
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesse Segura appeals his jury conviction of distribution of
more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). He argues that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conviction. He also argues that the
district court abused its discretion when it admitted testimony of
Segura’s prior convictions and his prior interactions with one of
the testifying witnesses.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Although Segura moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close
of the Government’s case, Segura did not renew his motion at the
close of the evidence. When defense counsel fails to renew a
motion for judgment of acquittal, this court reviews challenges to
the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether affirmance
would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States
v. McIntosh, 280 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002). We will reverse
only where the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt or
contains evidence on a key element of the offense that is so
tenuous that a conviction would be shocking. Id.
Trial testimony indicates that Segura routinely sold
quantities of methamphetamine to one of the testifying witnesses.
Additionally, methamphetamine sold to the witness by Segura and
that was found in the witness’s car established the quantity
determined by the jury. The record therefore is not devoid of
evidence pointing to guilt, nor is it so tenuous that a conviction
would be shocking. See United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 611
(5th Cir. 1996). Segura’s conclusional assertions regarding
witness credibility do not demonstrate that affirmance of the
conviction would result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. See
United States v. Polk, 56 F.3d 613, 620 (5th Cir. 1995).
The district court’s evidentiary rulings with respect to
Segura’s prior convictions and his prior interactions with one of
the testifying witnesses were in accord with FED. R. EVID. 404(b),
which provides that extrinsic evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or
2
acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person to show
action in conformity therewith, but is admissible for other
purposes, such as intent. FED. R. EVID. 404(b); United States v.
Bentley-Smith, 2 F.3d 1368, 1377 (5th Cir. 1993). Also, the
district court diminished the prejudicial effect of the FED.
R. EVID. 404(b) evidence by giving a comprehensive limiting
instruction to the jury regarding the proper use of the evidence.
See United States v. Taylor, 210 F.3d 311, 318 (5th Cir. 2000).
The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion with
reference to the challenged evidentiary rulings. Bentley-Smith,
2 F.3d at 1377.
The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
3