IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20425
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PHILLIP RAY WATKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Texas
(CR-H-95-301)
January 16, 1997
Before JOHNSON, GARWOOD, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Phillip Ray Watkins appeals his conviction of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and aiding and
abetting the possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute.
Watkins contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction.
In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a
conviction, the Court “must determine whether viewing the evidence
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
and inferences therefrom ‘in a light most favorable to the jury’s
guilty verdict[], a rational trier of fact could have found [the]
defendant[] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v.
Payne, 99 F.3d 1273, 1278 (5th Cir. 1996)(quoting United States v.
Velgar-Vivero, 8 F.3d 236, 239 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114
S. Ct. 1865 (1994)). Circumstantial evidence alone may prove the
existence of a conspiracy. United States v. Dean, 59 F.3d 1479,
1485 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 747 (1996). Some
circumstances, if considered individually, may be insufficient to
establish guilt; however, those same circumstances, if considered
collectively, could be sufficient evidence of guilt. See United
States v. Lechuga, 888 F.2d 1472, 1476 (5th Cir. 1989).
Thus, after thoroughly reviewing the record in the present
case, we hold that the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury
to find Watkins guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
AFFIRMED.
2