United States v. Cantu ( 1996 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40309
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN CANTU; JUAN JOSE A. FUENTES;
JUAN J. STEVENS; JESUS GARCIA,
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(B-95-258-02)
_________________________________________________________________
December 26, 1996
Before KING, GARWOOD, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Cantu, Juan Jose A. Fuentes, Juan J. Stevens, and Jesus
Garcia appeal their convictions for conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute in excess of 50 kilograms of marijuana and
possession with intent to distribute in excess of 50 kilograms of
marijuana. They argue that the evidence was insufficient to
support their conspiracy and possession convictions. Viewing the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
evidence in the record in the light most favorable to the jury’s
verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found that the
appellants committed each element of the conspiracy and
possession offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States
v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 1994).
The appellants also argue that the district court erred in
failing to instruct the jury that mere knowledge of the
conspiracy was not sufficient to find the appellants guilty of
conspiracy. The district court’s jury instructions as a whole
informed the jury that a person’s mere presence even with
knowledge of the conspiracy was not sufficient to convict the
person of conspiracy unless the person knowingly and willfully
agreed to participate in the conspiracy. Therefore, the district
court’s instructions as a whole were a correct statement of law
and did not mislead the jury as to the elements of the conspiracy
offense. See United States v. Pace, 10 F.3d 1106, 1121 (5th Cir.
1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 2180 (1994); United States v.
Stacey, 896 F.2d 75, 77 (5th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.
2