Case ID: f-appx_111/html/0292-01.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. Bethany Mellissa MATLOCK, also known as Bethany Mellissa Stratford, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-50137.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Oct. 20, 2004.
    
      Diane D. Kirstein, Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Samuel L. Martinez, Waco, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bethany Mellissa Matlock appeals a jury conviction for drug trafficking and related firearms offenses. She contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that she actively employed a firearm in relation to the drug-trafficking offense.

Contrary to Matlock’s contentions, the Government was not required to prove active employment of the firearm, but only that is was possessed in furtherance of the drug-trafficking crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); United States v. Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d 409, 413 & n. 5 (5th Cir.2000).

Because Matlock did not move for a judgment of acquittal, this court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence “only for a manifest miscarriage of justice-the record must be devoid of evidence of guilt or the evidence must be so tenuous that a conviction is shocking.” United States v. Avants, 367 F.3d 433, 449 (5th Cir.2004). The evidence showed that a loaded handgun was easily accessible in Matlock’s small house where drugs and money were found and where persons were attempting to buy drugs. This evidence is sufficient to establish that Matlock possessed a firearm in furtherance of the drug-trafficking offense. See Ceballos-Torres, 218 F.3d at 414-15.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.