Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dawn Marie COBB, Kenneth Ryan Hamann, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-25
Citations: 164 F. App'x 485
Docket Number: No. 04-51409
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dawn Marie COBB, Kenneth Ryan Hamann, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 485–486

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Dawn Marie COBB, Kenneth Ryan Hamann, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 04-51409.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 25, 2006.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Margaret Eve Trook, Alpine, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
A jury found that Dawn Marie Cobb and Kenneth Ryan Hamann, aided and abetted by each other, possessed equipment, chemicals, products and materials used to manufacture methamphetamine and opened, used, and maintained a place for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, and using methamphetamine. A jury also found that Harmann attempted to manufacture methamphetamine. Both Cobb and Harmann challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions, having adequately preserved their challenge in district court. See United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 911 n. 6 (5th Cir.1995)
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 beyond a reasonable doubt Cobb's and Hamann's guilt as to each of the charged offenses. See United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319, 322 (5th Cir.2003). 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.