Opinion ID: 782497
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Messere

Text: 90 Messere argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of possession of crack with intent to distribute on or about July 19, 1998, because, although Siler testified that Messere threw crack cocaine from the police car for Martinez on that date, that testimony was not substantiated by Martinez or any other witness. Messere argues that his conviction should be reversed because the witness accounts were entirely contradictory and because the government failed to establish that... the substance in question was cocaine base. (Messere brief on appeal at 9.) We reject both contentions. 91 Siler's testimony provided evidence of all of the elements of the offense, including the nature of the substance thrown as crack cocaine. Any lack of corroboration for his testimony or any conflicting testimony was a matter to be argued to the jury, not a ground for reversal on appeal. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the reasons stated by the district court, see Part I.C. above, in denying Messere's Rule 29 motion. 92