Case ID: f-appx_295/html/0667-02.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. Ramiro VARGAS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40006
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Oct. 8, 2008.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s, Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
    Emilio Alva, Jr., San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ramiro Vargas, Jr. appeals his jury verdict conviction for transmitting in interstate or foreign commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). He argues on appeal that: (1) the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict because his actual laptop computer was never produced at trial, and there was no mention that the laptop had been damaged by an electrical surge prior to its seizure; and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to request production of the laptop and by failing to assert that the laptop had been damaged.

Examination of the record indicates that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, a rational trier of fact could have found that the Government proved all of the essential elements of Vargas’s crime beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Morales, 272 F.3d 284, 287 (5th Cir.2001); United States v. Lankford, 196 F.3d 563, 575 (5th Cir.1999). Moreover, we do not consider Vargas’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel because he did not raise them in district court and the present record is insufficiently developed to resolve them. See United States v. Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087,1091 (5th Cir.2006).

The district court’s judgment is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.