Opinion ID: 42585
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: In an ordinary sufficiency of the evidence case, we review a defendant’s claim that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction in the light most favorable to the verdict, accepting all credibility choices and reasonable inferences made by the jury. United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 147 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. Lage, 183 F.3d 374, 382 (5th Cir. 1999). We must uphold the conviction if a rational jury could have found that the 3 Treft’s original appeal was not timely filed, and this Court remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether his failure to file in a timely manner was excusable. United States v. Treft, No. 04-41721 (5th Cir. Jan. 5, 2005). The district court found the untimely filing excusable and returned the case to this Court for further proceedings. United States v. Treft, No. 4:03-CR-190 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2005). 5 government proved the essential elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Wise, 221 F.3d at 147; Lage, 183 F.3d at 382. This standard of review is the same regardless of whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial. Wise, 221 F.3d at 147; Lage, 183 F.3d at 382. However, this is not an ordinary sufficiency of the evidence case. Treft does not challenge the factual basis for his conviction; he challenges the legal basis for attributing 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine to him. According to Treft, (1) the liquid containing traces of methamphetamine found in his home should not have been counted for purposes of 21 U.S.C. § 841 because it was an unmarketable mixture under Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991), and (2) there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction if that liquid is not counted. Thus, this case hinges on a legal determination of whether Chapman’s marketability test applies in § 841 cases involving methamphetamine. We apply a de novo standard of review to legal determinations, see United States v. Bellew, 369 F.3d 450, 452 (5th Cir. 2004), but where, as here, a defendant raises a legal argument for the first time on appeal,4 we review for plain error, 4 Granted, Treft moved for a judgment of acquittal at trial, but he did not raise his Chapman claim at that time. Moreover, he dropped his motion for judgment of acquittal as to the 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine once the district court granted it as to the 50 grams of pure methamphetamine. Thus, he failed to satisfy the purpose of requiring a defendant to object to preserve an issue for review: “to call the court’s attention to 6 see United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), abrogated in part by Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997). We will find reversible error only if there was an error, the error was clear or obvious, and the error affected the defendant’s substantial rights. Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162-64 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993)). Because we find that there was no error committed regarding the calculation of methamphetamine quantity in this case, we affirm Treft’s conviction. The law in this Circuit is clear: the Chapman marketability test does not apply when determining whether a liquid is a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine under § 841. See United States v. Anderson, 987 F.2d 251, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Sherrod, 964 F.2d 1501, 1509-11 (5th Cir. 1992); see also United States v. Palacios-Molina, 7 F.3d 49, 52-53 (5th Cir. 1993) (“[I]t would appear that [Chapman’s] marketoriented analysis was not intended to apply to methamphetamine or PCP. In fact, this Circuit has recognized as much.”). Treft gives no reason why we should change our law, other than citing a Seventh Circuit case, United States v. Stewart, 361 F.3d 373, 377-80 (7th Cir. 2004), that conflicts with Fifth Circuit precedent. Absent an the potential error ‘in such a manner so that the district court may correct itself and thus, obviate the need for [appellate] review.’” United States v. Gutierrez-Ramirez, 405 F.3d 352, 355 (5th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 15 F.3d 408, 414 (5th Cir. 1994)). 7 intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision or a change in statutory law,5 we are bound to follow a prior panel's decision. United States v. Anderson, 853 F.2d 313, 320 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we find that Treft’s challenge to the calculation of the quantity of methamphetamine found in his home must fail and, therefore, affirm Treft’s conviction.