Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus Manuel GUEDEA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-24
Citations: 300 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 08-50134
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Jesus Manuel GUEDEA-MARTINEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 300
Pages: 319–321

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Jesus Manuel GUEDEA-MARTINEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-50134.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 24, 2008.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elizabeth Berenguer, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Alfred Van Sumpter, Law Office of Alfred V. Sumpter, Del Rio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Jesus Manuel Guedea-Martinez ("Guedea-Martinez") was charged along with three co-defendants on four drug trafficking counts involving five or more kilograms of cocaine. The government proceeded on the theory that Guedea-Martinez arranged to import 11.2 kilograms of cocaine into the United States and hired one individual, Aguirre-Espinoza, to cross the border into the United States with the drugs and another individual, Rodríguez-Guerrero, to assist Guedea-Martinez in transporting the drugs on to San Antonio.
The only significant issue presented in the appeal is whether the government presented sufficient evidence to support Guedea-Martinez's conviction on all four counts. More particularly, the primary issue Guedea-Martinez contested was whether he had knowledge that the drugs were being transported and whether he assisted in that endeavor.
The government's primary proof consisted of the testimony of one of GuedeaMartinez's co-conspirators, RodríguezGuerrero, who testified that he and Guedea-Martinez, along with another co-conspirator assisting in the enterprise, met the night before the drugs were crossed into the United States to plan the operation and set up the time and place for meeting after the drugs arrived in the United States. Even if this had been the only evidence presented, "[e]vidence consisting entirely of testimony from accomplices or conspirators is sufficient" to support a conviction. United States v. Mendoza, 522 F.3d 482, 489 (5th Cir. 2008).
In addition to Rodriguez-Guerrero's testimony, the government provided substantial corroborating evidence from government agents who observed GuedeaMartinez interacting with RodríguezGuerrero while the agents had the co-conspirators under surveillance following Aguirre-Espinoza's delivery of the drugs to Rodríguez-Guerrero. Guedea-Martinez himself admitted to immigration officials that he owned all the cars involved in the day's events, that he had been in control of the truck carrying the drugs since purchasing it, and that he employed his co-defendants to regulai'ly drive cars back and forth across the border. Appellant's primary argument challenges the testimony of Rodríguez-Guerrero as being inconsistent in a number of respects. But these arguments all relate to the credibility of Rodríguez-Guerrero as a witness and this determination is in the province of the jury. Id.
Guedea-Martinez also argues that the chain of custody for the drugs taken from his truck was not sufficiently well established because the parties involved in confiscating and testing the drugs could not identify each other individually. This claim was not raised in the renewed motion for judgment of acquittal and is thus reviewed only for a "manifest miscarriage of justice." United States v. Rodriguez, 43 F.3d 117, 126 (5th Cir.1995). In the absence of any evidence of unusual departures from standard practice, GuedeaMartinez cannot meet this standard.
After a careful review of the record we are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, which we affirm.
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.