Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ben LANE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-13
Citations: 175 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 05-60305
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ben LANE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 175
Pages: 686–687

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ben LANE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-60305.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 13, 2006.
William Chadwick Lamar, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David O. Bell, Oxford, MS, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ben Lane appeals his conviction following a jury trial for conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce; aiding and abetting in the obstruction of interstate commerce; and possession of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. First, he asserts that the district court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We reject this assertion, as Lane has failed to show that a reasonable jury could not have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Sanchez, 961 F.2d 1169, 1173 (5th Cir.1992). We find unpersuasive his arguments that (1) a firearm discovered by police did not link him to the crime and that (2) certain witnesses were not credible. See id.
Likewise, we reject Lane's assertion that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based upon facts that were not determined by the jury. See United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 519 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 43, 163 L.Ed.2d 76 (2005).
Accordingly, 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.