The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
98-41145•United States v. Naranjo
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 98-41145
Summary Calendar
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
VERSUS
PEDRO NARANJO,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
_________________________
January 18, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and
PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pedro Naranjo appeals his conviction of
conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
a quantity exceeding 1,000 kilograms of
marihuana and possession with intent to
distribute a quantity exceeding 1,000
kilograms of marihuana in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(a), and 846. He argues that the
evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction, that the court erred in giving a
modified Allen charge, and that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the
verdict, the evidence is sufficient to support a
rational juror’s finding of guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt on all elements of the
charged offenses. See United States v. Resio-
Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910-13 (5th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Casilla, 20 F.3d 600, 602-07
(5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Garza, 990
F.2d 171, 173-76 (5th Cir. 1993). The
modified Allen charge did not place undue
pressure on the jury, and the court did not
abuse its discretion in giving it. See United
States v. Winters, 105 F.3d 200, 203-04 (5th
Cir. 1997); United States v. Nguyen, 28 F.3d
477, 484 (5th Cir. 1994). Because the record
as to Naranjo’s claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel is inadequately developed, we
decline to consider it, but without prejudice to
his right to assert it in a collateral proceeding.
See United States v. Scott, 159 F.3d 916, 924-
25 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Bounds,
943 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.
* 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determined that this opinion should not be published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.
-- 1 of 1 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.