Case ID: f-appx_602/html/0599-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan MANZANARES; Michael Jerwan Washington, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 13-20398
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 12, 2015.
    John Richard Berry, Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    
      Russell Matthew Soloway, Haverford, PA, John Riley Friesell, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.’
   PER CURIAM:

Defendants-Appellants Juan Manza-nares and Michael Jerwan Washington appeal their convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine. Manzanares contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress, and both he and Washington contend that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions.

We pretermit the non-jurisdictional issue of Manzanares’s untimely notice of appeal because the government’s brief is silent on this issue. See United States v. Martinez, 496 F.3d 387, 388 (5th Cir.2007). Manzanares has not shown any error in the district court’s suppression ruling. See United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 384-85 (5th Cir.2010). Neither has he shown that the district court admitted any statement made after he invoked his right to counsel. Cf. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 468-70, 474, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). His contention that the failure of police to inform him of counsel’s presence vitiated his waiver of his Miranda rights is unavailing. See Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 415-16, 423-24, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986).

We review de novo “ ‘whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Zamora, 661 F.3d 200, 209 (5th Cir.2011) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)). To prove that a defendant conspired to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, the government must prove that (1) the defendant agreed with another person to violate the narcotics laws; (2) he knew of the agreement; and (3) he voluntarily participated in the conspiracy. Id.

The government offered evidence that Manzanares supplied the cocaine at issue and that several of the coconspirators, including Washington, then sold that cocaine to another coconspirator through a series of transactions. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could infer that Manzanares and Washington participated in a plan to distribute the cocaine. See id. This agreement is evidenced by (1) their concert of action in distributing the cocaine, see United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762, 769 (5th Cir.2007); (2) the large quantity of cocaine that was distributed, see United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 334 (5th Cir.2012); and (3) the preexisting sales of cocaine among the conspirators, see United States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 338 (5th Cir.1993).

The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 
      
       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.