UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 97-41454
Summary Calendar
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ALPIDIO DONIAS GONZALEZ, also known as “PIO”,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(4:97-CR-2-1)
August 10, 1998
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Alpidio Donias Gonzalez appeals his conviction and sentence
for conspiracy to possess marijuana and possession with intent to
distribute marijuana. Gonzalez alleges that the district court
erred in failing to grant his motion for acquittal because the
testimony of two cooperating codefendants was insufficient as a
matter of law to support the jury’s guilty verdict and erred in
finding that Gonzalez exercised a leadership role in the offense.
The district court did not err in denying Gonzalez’s motion
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
for acquittal. See United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1552
(5th Cir. 1994) (“[A] guilty verdict may be sustained if supported
only by the uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator, even if
the witness is interested due to a plea bargain or promise of
leniency, unless the testimony is incredible or insubstantial on
its face . . . [meaning that the testimony] relates to facts that
the witness could not possibly have observed or to events which
could not have occurred under the laws of nature.”) (citations
omitted). We also find no clear error in the district court’s
factual finding that Gonzalez exercised a leadership role in the
offense. See United States v. Shipley, 963 F.2d 56, 59-60 (5th
Cir. 1992) (finding no clear error in the district court’s
determination that the defendant acted as a leader because
crediting the testimony of certain codefendants was a “permissible
credibility decision” left to the district court and did not render
such determination “[im]plausible in light of the record as a
whole”).
AFFIRMED.
2