United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS June 29, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-50895
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
CORY TYRONE ROBINSON, also known as Cedrick Lawarren Robinson,
true name Cory Tyrone Robinson, Sr.
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:06-CR-5-2
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Cory Tyrone Robinson appeals his conviction and 130-month
sentence for aiding and abetting possession with intent to
distribute cocaine. Robinson contends that the district court
erred by including as relevant conduct a quantity of Ecstasy
seized from his co-defendant’s vehicle. He also asserts that the
evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.
In addition to holding a defendant responsible for those
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-50895
-2-
drugs with which the defendant is directly involved, the district
court may attribute a drug quantity to the defendant as relevant
conduct. See United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 942
(5th Cir. 1994). Relevant conduct includes all acts or omissions
committed, aided, or abetted by the defendant, and in the case of
a joint criminal enterprise, “all reasonably foreseeable acts and
omissions of others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken
criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1).
Robinson concedes that the sale of drugs other than cocaine
by his co-defendant was reasonably foreseeable. A review of the
trial evidence and the information in the presentence report
(PSR) reveals that Ecstasy was present in the co-defendant’s
residence and vehicle, that Robinson was seen at the co-
defendant’s residence almost every day, and that Robinson and the
co-defendant used each other’s vehicles. Robinson did not
present evidence to rebut the information in the PSR, and the
district court was entitled to rely on it. See United States v.
Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246, 248 (5th Cir. 2005). Robinson has
not shown that the district court’s finding was clearly
erroneous. See United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 403 (5th
Cir. 1997).
Robinson contends that the Government did not produce
evidence that established his association with his co-defendant
prior to the day of Robinson’s arrest and that the evidence did
not implicate him directly in the distribution of cocaine.
No. 06-50895
-3-
Because Robinson did not move for a judgment of acquittal at the
close of the evidence, our review is limited to determining
whether there has been a “manifest miscarriage of justice,” which
occurs only when the record is devoid of evidence of guilt or
when the evidence on a key element of the offense is so tenuous
that a conviction would be shocking. See United States v. Smith,
203 F.3d 884, 887 (5th Cir. 2000).
The evidence demonstrated that cocaine was confiscated from
Robinson’s co-defendant’s vehicle and apartment, that Robinson
was seen going to the apartment on an almost daily basis, and
that Robinson entered the apartment without knocking. After
viewing the record evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable
inferences and credibility determinations, we conclude that the
record is not devoid of evidence nor is Robinson’s conviction
shocking. See id. Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.