IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10130
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
OSVALDO SANCHEZ GARCIA,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(3:00-CR-83-11-H)
_________________________________________________________________
October 15, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Osvaldo Sanchez Garcia appeals his convictions for conspiracy
to possess, and possession, with intent to distribute narcotics,
see 18 U.S.C. § 2, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846,
asserting that the evidence was insufficient.
Because Garcia did not renew his motion for judgment of
acquittal at the close of all the evidence, we need only determine
whether there was a “manifest miscarriage of justice”, which “would
exist only if the record is devoid of evidence pointing to guilt”.
United States v. Hinojosa, 958 F.2d 624, 628 (5th Cir. 1992)
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
(quoting United States v. Robles-Pantoja, 887 F.2d 1250, 1254 (5th
Cir. 1989)).
The trial testimony indicated that Garcia’s coconspirators
left him alone in a hotel room with a large quantity of cocaine.
See United States v. Garcia-Flores, 246 F.3d 451, 455 (5th Cir.
2001); United States v. Arzola-Amaya, 867 F.2d 1504, 1512-13 (5th
Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933 (1989). He was present in
the hotel room and witnessed his coconspirators test the cocaine
supply and turn it into crack. Garcia was present during
negotiations for a drug deal. Moreover, a jury reasonably could
have concluded from the testimony of Leopoldo Camacho Perez that
Garcia participated in the negotiation process. See United States
v. Dean, 59 F.3d 1479, 1488-89 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516
U.S. 1064 (1996), and cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1082 (1996). Finally,
an Agent from the Drug Enforcement Agency testified that secretly
recorded telephone conversations indicated that Garcia was the
source of the cocaine supply.
In short, the record is not devoid of evidence pointing to
guilt; far from it. In fact, the evidence was adequate to support
Garcia’s conviction. See United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928,
935-36 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1063 (1998), and
cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1131 (1998); United States v. Pena-
Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 1120, 1123-24 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied,
522 U.S. 819 (1997).
AFFIRMED