United States v. Cisneros ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41337
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
GABRIEL SAN MIGUEL CISNEROS; VALENTE CRUZ,
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-99-CR-206-2
--------------------
June 7, 2001
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gabriel San Miguel Cisneros and Valente Cruz appeal their
convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute in
excess of 1000 kilograms of marijuana and conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine.
They argue that the evidence was insufficient to support their
convictions. Because Cisneros moved for a judgment of acquittal at
the close of the Government’s case and renewed his motion at the
close of all of the evidence, the standard of review for his claim
is whether “a rational trier of fact could have found that the
evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond
a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-41337
-2-
Cir. 1996). Cruz did not move for a judgment of acquittal at the
close of the Government’s case but did so move at the close of all
of the evidence. When a defendant moves for a judgment of
acquittal at the close of the Government’s case but does not renew
the motion at the close of all of the evidence, the reverse of what
happened in Cruz’s case, review of his claim is limited to whether
his convictions resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice.
United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350, 1358 (5th Cir. 1994). A
review of the evidence indicates that, under either standard of
review, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions of
both Cisneros and Cruz. A rational trier of fact could have found
that the evidence established Cisneros, Cruz, and others agreed to
possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine; both
Cisneros and Cruz knew of the conspiracy and intended to join it;
Cisneros voluntarily participated in the conspiracy by attending at
least one meeting at which counter-surveillance plans were
discussed, unloading and repackaging the marijuana for
transportation, and assisting with counter-surveillance activities
during the transportation of the tractor-trailer through the border
patrol checkpoint at Laredo, Texas; and Cruz voluntarily
participated in the conspiracy by conducting counter-surveillance
activities during the transportation of the tractor-trailer through
the border patrol checkpoint. See United States v. Alix, 86 F.3d
429, 436 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539,
1551 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.