United States v. Teaff

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40625
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
PETER TEAFF,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(L-99-CR-1004-2)
--------------------
January 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, AND BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Peter Teaff (“Teaff”) appeals his
conviction for possession with the intent to distribute marijuana
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Teaff argues
that the evidence presented at his trial was insufficient to
support his conviction.
The standard of review of the sufficiency of evidence to
support a conviction is “whether any reasonable trier of fact could
have found that the evidence established the essential elements of

-- 1 of 2 --

2
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Ortega
Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998).
To prove possession with intent to distribute a controlled
substance, the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant knowingly possessed contraband with the intent
to distribute it. United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 345 (5th
Cir. 2000). Possession may be “actual or constructive.” Id.
Knowledge of possession can be proved by circumstantial evidence.
United States v. Rodriguez, 993 F.2d 1170, 1175 (5th Cir. 1993).
Our review of the record satisfies us that the evidence
presented at Teaff’s trial was sufficient to establish that he
knowingly possessed the marijuana. See United States v. Gibson,
963 F.2d 708, 710-11 (5th Cir. 1992); see also United States v.
Inocencio, 40 F.3d 716, 724-25 (5th Cir. 1994). Consequently,
Teaff’s conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --