Opinion ID: 63145
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Even without a full copy of the trial transcript, we decline to reverse the jury verdict because Harris failed to preserve this claim. Harris alleges that the government failed to produce evidence or testimony at his trial sufficient to support a conviction under 21 U.S.C. § 881. Harris notes his evidence that the currency derived from a legitimate business he runs with his partner, Baker. He also points out that after the stop and seizure, authorities did not investigate him for any drug-related offense, the officers did not test the currency or Harris’s hands for drug residue, and they did not find any drugs or paraphernalia after searching the car. Normally, our standard of review for a jury verdict is high: “We may overturn a jury verdict only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions.” Snyder v. Trepagnier, 142 F.3d 791, 795 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, however, Harris failed to preserve this issue on appeal by failing to move for judgment as a matter of law under FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a) at the close of the evidence and did not make a similar motion after the jury verdict. Navigant Consulting, Inc. v. Wilkinson, 508 F.3d 277, 288 (5th Cir. 2007) (“Generally, a party who fails to present a Rule 50(a) motion on an issue at the close of evidence waives . . . its right to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.”). Therefore, we will review only for plain error.2 2 For the first time in his reply brief, Harris makes the unsupported assertion that he instructed his trial attorney to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of the trial, but that his attorney refused. Harris offers no basis for this court to excuse his failure to preserve this issue based on vague and unsupported allegations of ineffective assistance of 8 No. 07-41091 Proceeding under plain error review, Harris cannot succeed on the merits.3 The incomplete record before us reflects that the jury heard substantial evidence to support probable cause that the seized cash was involved in drug transactions: a narcotics dog alerted to the money; the money was vacuum-wrapped and divided into $1,000-dollar increments with rubber bands (which two experienced police officers testified was standard practice for handling and transporting drug money); and Fulbright testified that he thought Harris’s behavior in Houston suggested drug activity.4 We cannot conclude that no reasonable jury would have found that this money was involved in drug transactions.