IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-40502
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RONNIE AMHED CEDENO;
TEOBALDO GAMBOA,
Defendants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:95-CR-159-1
- - - - - - - - - -
June 9, 1997
Before KING, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges:
PER CURIAM:*
Ronnie Amhed Cedeno and Teobaldo Gamboa appeal their
convictions for conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute a controlled substance and possession with the intent
to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846, 841(a)(1). They argue that the evidence was insufficient
to support their convictions; that the district court erred in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-40502
- 2 -
denying their motions to suppress evidence; and that
prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments deprived them
of a fair trial.
We conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found
that the evidence established guilt of these crimes beyond a
reasonable doubt. United States v. Ivey, 949 F.2d 759, 766 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 819 (1992).
We reject appellants’ argument that the district court erred
in denying their motions to suppress. Anita Stambaugh was not
acting as a government agent such as to give rise to Fourth
Amendment concerns. United States v. Bazan, 807 F.2d 1200, 1202
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1038 (1987). Moreover, the
affidavit supporting the search warrant was not so lacking in
indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its
existence entirely unreasonable. United States v. Satterwhite,
980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court did not
err.
We similarly reject appellants’ argument that the
prosecutor’s remarks during closing arguments deprived them of a
fair trial. The record reveals that the remarks, when viewed
individually or together, did not deprive them of a fair trial,
and even if the remarks were prejudicial, the harm was remedied
by the district court’s curative instructions. United States v.
Montoya-Ortiz, 7 F.3d 1171, 1178 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED.