United States v. Lozano-Ramirez , 75 F. App'x 302 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 18, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-51111
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
LUIS JOSE LOZANO-RAMIREZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(EP-99-CR-1497-3)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luis Jose Lozano-Ramirez appeals his convictions for
conspiracy to possess, and possession, with the intent to
distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. He challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence.
Lozano’s presence at certain places and times supports the
jury’s finding that he was a member of the conspiracy. See United
States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716, 721 (5th Cir.)(mere presence will
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
not alone support an inference of conspiracy; however, this factor
may be considered in finding conspiratorial activity), cert.
denied, 123 S. Ct. 1939 (2003); United States v. Paul, 142 F.3d
836, 840 (5th Cir. 1998) (jury may find participation from
defendant’s presence when presence would be unreasonable for anyone
other than a knowledgeable participant). In addition, Benjamin
Haro, a co-defendant, testified that Lozano and another co-
defendant were “working for the bosses” and “in charge”. Because
Haro’s testimony was not “factually insubstantial or incredible”,
it is sufficient evidence to support Lozano’s conspiracy
conviction. United States v. Westbrook, 119 F.3d 1176, 1190 (5th
Cir. 1997). In sum, “a reasonable trier of fact could have found
that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”.
United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000).
Lozano’s brief lists the sufficiency of evidence supporting
his possession with intent to distribute conviction as an issue on
appeal, but he does not discuss the issue in his brief. Because he
has failed to brief this issue, it is abandoned. See FED. R. APP.
P. 28 (a)(9)(A); e.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224 (5th
Cir. 1993)(failure to specifically brief issue results in its
abandonment).
AFFIRMED
2