Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Jesus Albarran

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 29, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-51366
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JESUS ALBARRAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas
5:00-CR-117-17
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesus Albarran was charged with and convicted of conspiracy
with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846, and conspiracy to commit
money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). Albarran
appeals his convictions, arguing that the government presented

-- 1 of 3 --

insufficient evidence to prove his identity. Finding sufficient
evidence as to each count, we AFFIRM Albarran’s convictions.
In order to overturn a conviction for insufficient evidence,
we must be satisfied that no rational jury could have found that
the government proved the essential elements of each charge beyond
a reasonable doubt. United States v. Anderson, 174 F.3d 515, 522
(5th Cir. 1999).
The government presented more than adequate evidence for a
juror to find that Albarran was involved with several other co-
conspirators in an extensive cocaine smuggling operation. See 21
U.S.C. § 846. The evidence also adequately established that the
profits from selling narcotics were funneled back into the
operation, through the purchase of numerous vehicles and other
assets. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)(a)(1)(A)(i).
We need not give a detailed account of the evidence, as
Albarran focuses his argument on what he considers to be
insufficient identification evidence. This was a question in large
part because the witnesses knew Albarran by the sobriquet “Venado.”
Albarran argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that he
was the person involved known as Venado. He has two bases for his
complaint: (1) of the four witnesses that picked him out of a photo
lineup, two could not positively identify him from the stand; and
(2) the identifying witnesses were inherently unreliable because
they were all co-conspirators with strong incentives to lie.
Neither of these complaints presents an adequate basis to

-- 2 of 3 --

overturn Albarran’s convictions. It is true that an uncertain
identification alone will not support a conviction. See United
States v. Guerrero, 169 F.3d 933, 942 (5th Cir. 1999). But here,
four witnesses positively identified Albarran in a photo lineup.
While two of them could not positively identify him in the
courtroom, the government explained that Albarran’s appearance
changed drastically in the six years since those two witnesses last
encountered Albarran. But even if we find that explanation
inadequate and that no rational juror could have relied on those
two witnesses, two other witnesses conclusively identified Albarran
in the photo lineup and in the courtroom. Those positive
identifications are sufficient to withstand this challenge.
Albarran then assails all of the witnesses’ identifications as
being self-serving and unreliable, largely because they were all
co-conspirators. But “it is well-settled that credibility
determinations are the sole province of the jury.” United States
v. Cathey, 259 F.3d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 2001). Albarran had the
opportunity, and took it, to attempt to discredit these witnesses
before the jury. The jury apparently found the witnesses to be
convincing despite any biases. We will not disturb that
determination simply because the witnesses arguably had incentives
to give false testimony.
Finding that sufficient evidence exists on each count, we
AFFIRM Albarran’s convictions.

-- 3 of 3 --