### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 11117 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOHN HOCKETT , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 267

- 14

Before BARKSDALE, ELROD and COSTA , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * John Hockett appeals his jury

- trial conviction for conspiracy to distribute 50 kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing mari juana , in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) , (b)(1)(C) , and 846

. Hockett , a California resident , asserts there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction

. In that regard, h e maintains he was unaware of his co

- conspirators’ intent to distribute the marijuana in Dallas, Texas.

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. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R

. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 29, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-11117 Document: 00513210855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2015No. 14

- 11117

2 Properly preserved s uf ficiency

- of

- the

- evidence challenges are reviewed “in the light m ost favorable to the government” and will fail if “ any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt”. United States v. Thoma s , 988 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1993). In this instance, however, as Hockett concedes, this issue was not preserved in district court; therefore, review is only for plain error to determine , inter alia , whether there has been a “ manifest miscarriage of justice ”

. United States v. Delgado , 672 F.3d 320, 3 31 & n.9 (5 th Cir. 2012) (en banc). Along that line, t he record must not be “devoi d of evidence pointing to guilt ” and the evidence not “so tenuou s that a conviction is shocking ”

. Id . at 331 ( emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted ). T he evidence is considered in the light most favorable to the Government , giving it the benefit of all reasonable inferences and credibility choices

. Id. at 33 2. Hockett sold marijuana to Jayme Meadows and Travis Potash in California

. Meadows and Potash, who cooperated with the Government, testified Hockett knew of the ir intent to distribute the purchased marijuana in Dallas . Hockett contends Potash and Meadows’ cooperation with the Government rendered their testimony self

- serving and unreliable. Meadows test ified he told Hockett he was comin g from Dallas to purchase marijuana from Hockett , and Hockett provided suggestions for shipping i t to Dallas , including using expandable foam in the packaging and transporting i t with a musician travelling from California to Texas

. Similarly, Potash, who went with Meadows to purchase marijuana from Hockett in California , testified he was confident he told Hockett he and Meadows travelled from Texa s. T he credibility of witnesses is a determination left for the jury. E.g., United States v. Garcia , 567 F.3d 721, 731 (5 th Cir. 2009). Here, t he jury Case: 14-11117 Document: 00513210855 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2015No. 14

- 11117

3 determined Meadows’ testimony corroborated Hockett’s involvement in the conspiracy. Furthermore, Meadows’ testimony substantially matched Potash’s and was not incredible as a matter of law. Id

. ; s ee also United States v. Osum , 943 F.2d 1394, 1405 (5 th Cir. 1991). In the light of the evidence, Hockett’s conviction did not result in the requisite mani fest miscarriage of justice. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-11117 Document: 00513210855 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2015