United States v. Rodriguez ( 1997 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40914
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ a/k/a Pipi,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. L-95-CR-280-3
- - - - - - - - - -
April 3, 1997
Before WISDOM, JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro Rodriguez appeals his conviction following a jury
trial for possession of marihuana with intent to distribute and
conspiracy commit the same. Rodriguez challenges the legality of
coconspirator Ernesto Gonzalez’s detention, search, and arrest
and the evidence that resulted from those activities. Rodriguez
was not present at Gonzalez’s arrest and does not assert he had
any possession or control over any of the items that were
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-40914
- 2 -
searched and seized. Absent any violation of his privacy or
property interests, Rodriguez’s status as a coconspirator does
not give him standing to challenge Gonzalez’s search and arrest.
United States v. Padilla, 508 U.S. 77, 81-82 (1993) (per curiam).
Rodriguez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his conviction for conspiracy, specifically arguing that
the district court erred by admitting Gonzalez’s testimony
without previously finding that there was an actual conspiracy
and that Gonzalez’s statements were made in furtherance of a
conspiracy. Because Rodriguez failed to renew his motion for
judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence, our
review is limited to plain error. Even without Gonzalez’s
testimony at trial, no manifest miscarriage of justice occurred
in the conviction. The record was not devoid of evidence
pointing to Rodriguez’s guilt. See United States v. Davis, 30
F.3d 613, 615 (5th Cir. 1994). Finally, Rodriguez had the
opportunity to cross-examine Gonzalez. Thus, his contention that
his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, as defined under
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), is without merit.
See United States v. Steen, 55 F.3d 1022, 1033 n.26 (5th Cir.),
cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 577 (1995).
AFFIRMED.