Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kay WHISENHUNT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-13
Citations: 231 F. App'x 334
Docket Number: No. 06-50940
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kay WHISENHUNT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 334–334

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kay WHISENHUNT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-50940
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 13, 2007.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Evers Jason Leach, Law Offices of E. Jason Leach, Odessa, TX, for Defendant Appellant.
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kay Whisenhunt was convicted by a jury of seven drug-related offenses. She challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her convictions of possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine on October 24, 2005, and attempting to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine on October 28, 2005.
Whisenhunt did not move for a judgment of acquittal in the district court. Accordingly, we will review the sufficiency of the evidence only to determine whether Whisenhunt's conviction constitutes a manifest miscarriage of justice. United States v. Griffin, 324 F.3d 330, 356 (5th Cir.2003). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we have determined that a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established Whisenhunt's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to both offenses. Therefore, Whisenhunt's convictions did not result in a manifest miscarriage of justice. See id.
The judgment of the district court 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.