IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-50139
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DOLORES BERNAL-GARCIA;
EFRAIN URIAS-VALENZUELA,
Defendants-Appellants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-96-CR-47
- - - - - - - - - -
June 2, 1998
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The defendants Dolores Bernal-Garcia and Efrain Urias-
Valenzuela argue that their convictions for conspiracy and
possession with intent to distribute marijuana were not supported
by sufficient evidence at trial.
Because the appellants did not move for a judgment of
acquittal at the close of the Government’s case or after the jury
verdict was entered, the standard of review of their claim of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 97-50139
-2-
insufficient evidence is restricted to whether there has been a
manifest miscarriage of justice. A manifest miscarriage of
justice occurs only if the record is devoid of evidence pointing
to a defendant’s guilt. United States v. Shannon, 21 F.3d 77, 83
(5th Cir. 1994). The testimony of the appellants’ coconspirators
considered in conjunction with the conflicting statements made by
the defendants following their arrest provided sufficient
evidence of their guilt.
Bernal-Garcia argues for the first time on appeal that the
stop and seizure made by the Border Patrol agents were illegal
because they were not based on a reasonable suspicion or probable
cause. Appellate review of this issue is barred because the
defendants did not file a motion to suppress evidence in the
district court in accord with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See United States v. Chavez-Valencia, 116 F.3d 127,
134 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 325 (1997).
AFFIRMED.