United States v. Carbajal-Adame

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
July 24, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-40862
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RAUL CARBAJAL-ADAME; VICTOR
ARCOS-BENITEZ
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:05-CR-701-2
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
A jury convicted Raul Carbajal-Adame (Carbajal) and Victor
Arcos-Benitez (Arcos) of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine and the district court sentenced each
defendant to a 121-month term of imprisonment. Carbajal argues
on appeal that the evidence is insufficient to support his
conviction, while Arcos argues that the district court erred by
refusing to accept Arcos’s guilty plea.
Although Carbajal moved for a judgment of acquittal at the
close of the Government’s case-in-chief and again at the close of

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-40862
-2-
the defense evidence, he did not renew the motion at the close of
the Government’s rebuttal evidence. Accordingly, we review the
evidence only to determine whether there has been a manifest
miscarriage of justice. United States v. Green, 293 F.3d 886,
895 (5th Cir. 2002). Because the trial evidence supports the
jury’s determination that Carbajal conspired to possess cocaine
with the intent to distribute it, we affirm his conviction.
Because Arcos denied any involvement with illegal drugs at
his rearraignment hearing, the district court did not err by
refusing to accept his guilty plea. United States v. Cano-Guel,
167 F.3d 900, 906 (5th Cir. 1999); FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(3).
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)(1). Furthermore, Arcos has failed to show
that acceptance of his guilty plea after trial commenced would
have made him eligible for a reduction in offense level under the
advisory Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(a)(1),
5C1.2(a); United States v. Sanchez-Ruedas, 452 F.3d 409, 414 (5th
Cir. 2006). Thus, any error resulting from the court’s refusal
to allow Arcos to enter a guilty plea after the jury was
empaneled was harmless. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(a).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --