Case ID: f-appx_108/html/0944-01.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. Ruben MEDINA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-51097.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Sept. 14, 2004.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mike Barclay, Law Offices of Mike Barclay, Alpine, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and BARKSDALE and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Ruben Medina was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute, 50 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He argues that the district court committed reversible error when it refused his request for a jury instruction on withdrawal from the conspiracy.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Medina, we conclude that there was a sufficient evidentiary foundation for a jury instruction on withdrawal. United States v. Dixon, 185 F.3d 393, 402 (5th Cir.1999). Specifically, Medina’s testimony and the testimony of Marcos Medina constituted sufficient evidence that Medina committed affirmative acts inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy and that he communicated those acts in a manner reasonably calculated to reach the conspirators. United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 945 (5th Cir.1994).

Because the record sufficiently supports the defensive theory of withdrawal from the conspiracy to entitle Medina to a jury instruction on withdrawal, we VACATE his conspiracy conviction and REMAND this matter for further proceedings. United States v. John, 309 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.2002).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.