UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-50536
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL MERIDYTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(MO-99-CR-36-1)
May 18, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Presenting two issues, Michael Meridyth appeals his
convictions for conspiracy to distribute, and distribution of, more
than five grams of crack cocaine.
First, Meridyth contends the evidence was insufficient to
support his convictions. Meridyth moved unsuccessfully for
judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government’s case-in-
chief, but failed to renew his motion at the close of the evidence.
Consequently, Meridyth waived any objection to the denial of his
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
motion to acquit. E.g., United States v. Shannon, 21 F.3d 77, 83
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 901 (1994). Thus, we review
only whether there has been a manifest miscarriage of justice. Id.
We will reverse Meridyth’s convictions only if “the record is
devoid of evidence pointing to guilt”. Id. (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted; emphasis added).
Meridyth challenges the credibility of Robinson, a government
informant who testified about his prior dealings with Meridyth and
the events surrounding the drug transaction. Of course, “the jury
is the final arbiter of the credibility of witnesses.” United
States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1552 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,
513 U.S. 1156 (1995). In any event, the following additional
evidence was introduced: corroborating testimony by detective
Medrano, who observed the transaction; evidence linking Meridyth to
the cellular telephone number and vehicle used in the transaction;
an audio tape of the transaction linking Meridyth to the drugs; and
evidence of attempts by Meridyth to evade arrest. In short, there
was no manifest miscarriage of justice.
Second, Meridyth asserts he was denied a fundamentally fair
trial because of comments by the district judge, referring to the
television show, “The Sopranos”. See United States v. Johnston,
127 F.3d 380, 388 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1152
(1998). Because Meridyth failed to object to those comments, we
review only for plain error. See, e.g., United States v.
Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert.
denied, 513 U.S. 1196 (1995).
2
After a recorded sample of Meridyth’s voice was played for
the jury (before it was played, Meridyth’s lawyer stated that he
“just want[ed] the jury to know that Mr. Meridyth read a script I
wrote”), the district judge stated: “I don’t think that script’s
going to sell to the [S]opranos”; and “I don’t think Tony Soprano
is worried about his brother being wired”. The comments were
apparently made in an attempt to inject some humor into the
proceedings. Even assuming they were inappropriate, they did not
affect Meridyth’s substantial rights. The jury was informed of its
duty to determine credibility; and was instructed to consider only
the evidence adduced at trial and to disregard any comments by the
court. See. e.g., Johnston, 127 F.3d at 388. There was no plain
error.
AFFIRMED
3