Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Reginald PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-12
Citations: 89 F. App'x 462
Docket Number: No. 03-20204
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Reginald PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 462–462

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Reginald PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-20204.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
March 12, 2004.
Mitchel Neurock, US Attorney’s Office, Laredo, TX, James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dwayne Reginald Patterson has appealed his jury convictions for conspiracy to possess stolen microprocessors and five individual counts of possession of stolen microprocessors in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 2315. Patterson contends that the Government failed to prove that he knew that the microprocessors were stolen. Contrary to Patterson's assertion, the evidence does not give "equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence of the crime charged." United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir.1995). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to enable a reasonable juror to find that the Government had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Patterson participated in the conspiracy to sell stolen microprocessors and had possessed those microprocessors knowing that the microprocessors were stolen. See United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc), ajfd on other grounds, 462 U.S. 356, 103 S.Ct. 2398, 76 L.Ed.2d 638 (1983); see also Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.