United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 12, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-51106
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO MORENO, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. P-03-CR-60-ALL
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DEMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Moreno, Jr., appeals his jury conviction of aiding
and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
Moreno argues that the Government failed to prove the existence
of five or more kilograms of cocaine. The jury, in convicting
Moreno, obviously chose to credit the testimony of the
Government’s forensic chemist about the accuracy of the
measurement of the amount of cocaine as being more than five
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-51106
-2-
kilograms. Such credibility determinations are the sole province
of the jury. See United States v. Cathey, 259 F.3d 365, 368 (5th
Cir. 2001).
Moreno also argues that the district court should not have
denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the
Government’s case because Gilberto Blanco, the Government’s chief
witness, lacked credibility. Specifically, Moreno argues that
the ice in the ice chest where the cocaine was found would have
melted at least a little during an hour-long drive, demonstrating
that Blanco was lying.
Given all of the evidence adduced at trial, it was a
“reasonable construction[] of the evidence” to conclude that
Blanco’s testimony was truthful and that Blanco was driving the
van containing the cocaine-filled ice chest because of a prior
arrangement with Moreno. See United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d
575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). The Government proved all of the
elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, and we must
affirm the conviction. See United States v. Garcia, 242 F.3d
593, 596 (5th Cir. 2001).
Moreno also argues that the district court abused its
discretion in allowing into evidence the Verizon cell phone
records. The Verizon store manager’s testimony satisfies the
authentication requirement because he explained his familiarity
with the procedure by which the records were generated and
established the requirements of FED. R. EVID. 803(6). See United
No. 03-51106
-3-
States v. Iredia, 866 F.2d 114, 119-20 (5th Cir. 1989);
Rosenberg v. Collins, 624 F.2d 659, 665 (5th Cir. 1980). Moreno
has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
admitting the cell phone records. See United States v. Wells,
262 F.3d 455, 459 (5th Cir. 2001). The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.