Case Name: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Magdaleno ALCANTAR-CHAIDEZ Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-20
Citations: 97 F. App'x 489
Docket Number: No. 03-40214
Parties: UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Magdaleno ALCANTAR-CHAIDEZ Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 97
Pages: 489–489

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Magdaleno ALCANTAR-CHAIDEZ Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-40214.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
May 20, 2004.
James Lee Turner, Assistant US Attorney, Julia Bowen Stern, Assistant US Attorney, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Roland E. Dahlin, II, Federal Public Defender, Brent Evan Newton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Magdaleno Alcantar-Chaidez appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, on charges that he conspired to possess more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute it, and possessed more than 100 kilograms of marijuana with the intent to distribute it, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 846. He contends that the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support his convictions. In effect, Alcantar-Chaidez is challenging the district court's denial of his motion for acquittal, an issue which we review de novo. See United States v. Leed, 981 F.2d 202, 205 (5th Cir.1993).
Viewing the evidence produced at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established Alcantar-Chaidez's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for both offenses. See United States v. Jaramillo, 42 F.3d 920, 922-23 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Ivy, 973 F.2d 1184, 1888 (5th Cir.1992). Accordingly, the district court's judgment is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.