United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 23, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40813
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE MANUEL VILLARREAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. B-02-CR-520-1
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, AND PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jose Manuel Villarreal (Villarreal) appeals his convictions
for one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to
distribute more than 500 grams of cocaine and one count of aiding
and abetting the possession with the intent to distribute more
than 500 grams of cocaine. Villarreal contends that there was
insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that he intentionally possessed, or that he
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-40813
-2-
conspired with co-defendants Ramon Perez-Martinez (Perez) and
Rosa Idalia Trevino (Trevino) to possess with the intent to
distribute, more than 500 grams of cocaine. Villarreal argues
that the Government’s case was primarily based on the unreliable
testimony of Perez and Trevino. He contends that the co-
defendants’ testimony was inconsistent and failed to prove the
essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because Villarreal moved for a judgment of acquittal in the
district court, we review the sufficiency of the evidence to
determine whether, considering all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict, a reasonable trier of fact could have
found that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir.
2000). In cases involving a conspiracy, the “conviction may be
based upon the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator, even
when that testimony is from one who has made a plea bargain with
the government, provided that the testimony is not incredible or
otherwise insubstantial on its face.” United States v. Gadison,
8 F.3d 186, 190 (5th Cir. 1993). A witness’ testimony may be
inconsistent, but sufficient, nonetheless. United States v.
Greenwood, 974 F.2d 1449, 1458 (5th Cir. 1992).
Considering all the evidence in the light most favorable to
the verdict, there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to
prove that Villarreal intentionally possessed, and that he
conspired with Perez and Trevino to possess with the intent to
No. 03-40813
-3-
distribute, more than 500 grams of cocaine. The Government
introduced telephone records showing a pattern of telephone
activity corroborating the testimony of Trevino. Perez and
Trevino’s testimony was also corroborated by other witnesses at
trial, including the surveillance officers and the confidential
informant. Accordingly, Villarreal’s convictions are AFFIRMED.