United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50315

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Samuel Morales, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:20-CR-159-2

Before Southwick, Haynes, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Samuel Morales appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. He argues that there was 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50315 Document: 00516287740 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2022
No. 21-50315

2

insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and that the district court 

erred in admitting certain hearsay testimony.1

 We AFFIRM. 

With respect to the insufficient evidence challenge, Morales’s 

conviction arises out of an alleged conspiracy with another individual, George 

Galindo. The evidence presented supported the conclusion that Galindo, 

who left his visit with Morales carrying a black camera bag that contained 139 

grams of heroin, obtained that bag during his visit with Morales. Aside from 

the black camera bag, there was additional evidence and testimony thatwould

allow the jury to reasonably infer that Morales agreed to, knew of, and 

voluntarily participated in a drug conspiracy with Galindo, including: (1) the 

ledger found in Morales’s motel room with his name in it, (2) the motel 

receipts that investigators found in Morales’s room, (3) Sergeant Sanchez’s 

testimony regarding motel room use by drug dealers, (4) Morales’s 

admission that he knew Galindo, and (5) Morales’s dishonesty regarding the 

reason Galindo was at the motel.

In light of this evidence, any rational trier of fact could have found 

beyond a reasonable doubt that Morales knowingly and voluntarily agreed 

with Galindo to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin. 

See United States v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). We 

1 We review properly preserved sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo. See 

United States v. Chon, 713 F.3d 812, 818 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). Nevertheless, we give 

substantial deference to the jury verdict. See id. Viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the Government, we only ask “whether any rational trier of fact could have 

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). 

We review a properly preserved objection concerning an evidentiary ruling for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Watkins, 591 F.3d 780, 786 (5th Cir. 2009). However, 

when counsel fails to properly preserve an objection, we review only for plain error. See 

United States v. Thompson, 454 F.3d 459, 464 (5th Cir. 2006).

Case: 21-50315 Document: 00516287740 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2022
No. 21-50315

3

therefore decline to reverse the district court based on Morales’s sufficiency 

of the evidence argument. 

Morales also argues that the district court erred in allowing alleged

hearsay testimony concerning the circumstances of his 2009 possession

offense. Although it is debatable whether he properly preserved this 

objection, we conclude that, even assuming arguendo the hearsay challenge 

was properly made and that the comments in question were hearsay, he still 

does not prevail. Morales’s argument fails because the admission of the 

testimony in question did not affect Morales’s substantial rights under a 

harmless error analysis.

2 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a) (“Any error, defect, 

irregularity, or variance that does not affect substantial rights must be 

disregarded.”).

For similar reasons, we decline to reverse based on the Government’s 

reference to the alleged hearsay in its closing argument. Because defense 

counsel failed to object to the Government’s closing, we review for plain 

error. See United States v. Oti, 872 F.3d 678, 690 (5th Cir. 2017). As 

discussed above, nothing suggests that the alleged hearsay affected Morales’s 

“substantial rights,” so he fails the third prong of plain error review. See id.; 

see also United States v. Pena, 720 F.3d 561, 574 n.9 (5th Cir. 2013) (“Although 

the government assessed the impact of the court’s condition under a 

harmless-error standard, its arguments are still germane to our plain-error

analysis.”). 

2 It is notable that Morales is not raising a constitutional error, which, to be 

harmless, requires a finding “beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did 

not contribute to the verdict obtained.” Mitchell v. Esparza, 540 U.S. 12, 17–18 (2003) (per 

curiam) (quotation omitted). 

Case: 21-50315 Document: 00516287740 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/20/2022
No. 21-50315

4

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Morales’s conviction and 

sentence. 

Case: 21-50315 Document: 00516287740 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/20/2022