Court Opinion

ID: 22436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:55:48+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:29.727148
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _____________________

                              No. 99-41374
                            Summary Calendar
                         _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                 versus

MIKE TORRES,

                                             Defendant-Appellant,
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                      USDC No. L-98-CR-830-1
_________________________________________________________________

                           October 26, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Mike Torres appeals his conviction after a jury trial of

possession with intent to distribute marihuana. He argues that the

evidence   was    insufficient   to   support   his    conviction.    In

particular, he contends that the evidence did not establish that he

knew of the marihuana hidden in the tires of the pickup truck he

was driving.

     *
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
     We review the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction

to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found

that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318 (1979).      It is the sole

province of the jury to determine the weight and credibility of the

evidence.   United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 602 (5th Cir.

1994).   “It is not necessary that the evidence exclude every

reasonable hypothesis of innocence. But, there must be substantial

evidence to uphold the verdict of the jury.”      United States v.

Espinoza-Seanez, 862 F.2d 526, 536 (5th Cir. 1988) (citations

omitted).   The evidence must be construed in the light most

favorable to the prosecution.   United States v. Lombardi, 138 F.3d
559, 560 (5th Cir. 1998).

     Considering the totality of the circumstances, we find that

the evidence was sufficient to support a reasonable juror’s finding

of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.    See United States v. Resio-

Trejo, 45 F.3d 907 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Olivier-

Becerril, 861 F.2d 424 (5th Cir. 1988).

                                                JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

                                 2