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 

marijuana, 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, he maintains he was unaware of his co-conspirators’ 

intent to distribute the marijuana in Dallas, Texas. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11117 Document: 00513210855 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
No. 14-11117

2

Properly preserved sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges are reviewed 

“in the light most 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. Thomas, 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, 331 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2012) (en 

banc). Along that line, the record must not be “devoid of evidence pointing to 

guilt” and the evidence not “so tenuous that a conviction is shocking”. Id. at 

331 (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). The evidence

is considered in the light most favorable to the Government, giving it the 

benefit of all reasonable inferences and credibility choices. Id. at 332.

Hockett sold marijuana to Jayme Meadows and Travis Potash in 

California. Meadows and Potash, who cooperated with the Government, 

testified Hockett knew of their 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 testified he told Hockett he was coming from Dallas to 

purchase marijuana from Hockett, and Hockett provided suggestions for 

shipping it to Dallas, including using expandable foam in the packaging and 

transporting it 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 Texas. 

The credibility of witnesses is a determination left for the jury. E.g.,

United States v. Garcia, 567 F.3d 721, 731 (5th Cir. 2009). Here, the jury 

 Case: 14-11117 Document: 00513210855 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/29/2015
No. 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.; see also United States v. Osum, 

943 F.2d 1394, 1405 (5th Cir. 1991). In the light of the evidence, Hockett’s 

conviction did not result in the requisite manifest miscarriage of justice.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 14-11117 Document: 00513210855 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/29/2015