Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Laderillero FLORES, also known as Mario Flores, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-06
Citations: 161 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 05-40304
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Laderillero FLORES, also known as Mario Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 407–407

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mario Laderillero FLORES, also known as Mario Flores, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-40304.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 6, 2006.
Maureen Clancy Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sherman, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jose Alwin Stewart, Plano, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Mario Laderillero Flores appeals from his jury conviction of conspiring to distribute or possess with intent to distribute or dispense methamphetamine. He argues that the evidence produced at trial, which merely established that he was present at the methamphetamine transaction, was insufficient to support the jury's verdict.
Flores did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the district court. Accordingly, this court reviews his argument only to determine if his conviction constitutes a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Griffin, 324 F.3d 330, 356 (5th Cir.2003). When viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict, the evidence produced at trial established all of the elements of the charged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.; United States v. Chavez, 119 F.3d 342, 347 (5th Cir.1997). Therefore, Flores's conviction did not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. See Griffin, 324 F.3d at 356.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.