* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

July 21, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10085

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaint iffAppellee,

versus

JUAN MALDONADO-HERNANDEZ;

MIGUEL MARTINEZ-LOPEZ,

DefendantsAppellants.

------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CR-36-C

--------------------------------------------------------------

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Maldonado-Hernandez and Miguel Martinez-Lope z appeal their jury convictions for

assault on a correctional officer assisting officers and employees of the United States under 18 U.S.C.

§§ 111(a)(1) and (b) and 1114. Martinez argues that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient-2-

t o support his convictions because the testimony of one of the correctional officers canno t be

reconciled with the identification of him by the victim.

The vict im, who knew Martinez from the dormitory where Martinez was housed, positively

identified Martinez as one of the inmates who kicked him. The jury chose to believe the vict im’s

testimony, and we do not second-guess such a credibility determination. S ee United States v. Green

,

293 F.3d 886, 895 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied

, 123 S. Ct. 1783 (2003). The victim did not assert

facts that he could not have observed or events that defy the laws of nature. S ee United States v.

Gadison

, 8 F.3d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1993). M artinez ha s not shown that the j ury ’s verdi ct was a

manifest miscarriage of justice. See United States v. Galvan , 949 F.2d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 1991)

.

Maldonado argues that the indictment failed to allege an offense in violation of federal law

because it failed to allege that the person whom the victim was assisting was engaged in the discharge

of official duties, an essential element of the offense. The indictment alleged all of the elements of

the crimes charged. S e e United States v. Jacquez-Bel tran , 326 F.3d 661, 663 (5th Cir. 2003).

Maldonado has identified no plain error. See United States v. Cotton

, 535 U.S. 625, 631-32 (2002).

Although Maldonado concedes that he committed the assault, he argues that the evidence

is insufficient to support the convictions because employees of a private detention center should not

be considered to be assisting federal off icers unless they are acting in cooperation with, under the

direct control of, and in the physical presence of federal officers. We have declined to add to the

st atutory elements of 18 U.S.C. §§ 111 and 1114 “by requiring that a federal agent be physically

present with the victim at the time of the assault.” J acquez-Beltran

, 326 F.3d at 663

. Martinez has

not shown that the jury’s verdict was a manifest miscarriage of justice. S ee Galvan

, 949 F.2d at 783.-3-

Finally, although Maldonado concedes that his argument lacks merit, Maldonado contends

that his separate convictions and sentences violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because, even though

the sentences are concurrent, the ent ry of the multiple convictions and sentences impermissibly

punished him three times for the same offense. Because Maldonado did not object to the indictment

in the district court, his argument as to the multiple convictions is waived. S ee id. at 7 81.

Maldonado cannot chal lenge his sentences because they are concurrent, and his argument on this

issue is foreclosed. Id. The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.