United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40170

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Lawrence James Espree, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:17-CR-416-1

Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Lawrence James Espree was convicted following a bench trial for 

conspiring to possess with intent to deliver more than 50 grams of 

methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 846. The 

district court imposed a downward variance sentence of 200 months of 

* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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

December 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40170 Document: 00515688517 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 20-40170

2

imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. Espree appeals, 

contending that the district court should have granted his motion for a 

judgment of acquittal. See Fed. R. App. P. 29(a). We affirm. 

At the close of the Government’s evidence, Espree moved for a 

judgment of acquittal on the specific basis that no Government witness had 

identified him or testified that he is the person who committed the offense 

charged in the indictment. On appeal, he asserts that the sole issue is whether 

the Government met its burden to present substantial evidence of his identity 

during its case in chief. We review this claim under the usual sufficiency 

standard, which asks whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most 

favorable to the verdict, any rational trier fact could have found the essential 

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Herrera, 

313 F.3d 882, 884 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc). 

Contrary to Espree’s assertion that inferring the identity of the 

accused is impermissible, “[i]dentity . . . may be proved by inference and 

circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Royals, 777 F.2d 1089, 1091 (5th 

Cir. 1985). “An in-court identification is not necessary for conviction.” 

United States v. Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal 

quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). “[C]onnecting or 

corroborating facts or circumstances” may supply the evidence needed in the 

absence of an identification. United States v. Johnson, 427 F.2d 957, 961 (5th 

Cir. 1970). In the instant case, inference, circumstantial evidence, and 

connecting or corroborating facts and circumstances easily combine to prove 

that the person convicted, Lawrence James Espree, is the person who 

committed the crime charged in the indictment. Our thorough review of the 

record establishes that the district court had ample basis for a rational 

inference that the Lawrence James Espree who was the defendant in the trial 

and who himself gave testimony is the Lawrence James Espree charged with 

conspiracy in the indictment and the person who committed that crime. See

Case: 20-40170 Document: 00515688517 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2020
No. 20-40170

3

Lugo-Lopez, 833 F.3d at 458; Royals, 777 F.2d at 1091; Johnson, 427 F.2d at 

961. Indeed, it is difficult to fathom how a rational trier of fact could have 

inferred anything to the contrary.

We do not read Espree’s counseled briefs as asserting a more 

generalized insufficiency claim, as precedent precludes liberal construction 

of counseled briefs. See Woodfox v. Cain, 609 F.3d 774, 792 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Nevertheless, we note that any such claim would fail under either the usual 

review standard for insufficiency claims or the stricter devoid-of-evidence 

standard applicable to such claims if they are first raised on appeal. See 

Herrera, 313 F.3d 884-85 & n.*; see also United States v. Ruiz, 860 F.2d 615, 

617 (5th Cir. 1988). Our thorough review of the record establishes that the 

testimony of Alfonso Cuevas, a Government witness and unindicted coconspirator, was alone sufficient to convict Espree. See United States v. 

Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 257 (5th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Solis, 299 

F.3d 420, 445 (5th Cir. 2002). Thus, the record is not devoid of evidence 

that Espree committed the charged drug conspiracy; to the contrary, the 

record contains sufficient evidence that he did. See Herrera, 313 F.3d at 884-

85 & n.*.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40170 Document: 00515688517 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/29/2020