United States v. Carbajal-Adame

235 F. App'x 235

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 24, 2007
• Docket: 06-40862
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

A jury convicted Raul Carbajal-Adame (Carbajal) and Victor Arcos-Benitez (Ar-cos) 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 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. § 3El.l(a)(1). Furthermore, Ar-cos 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. §§ 3El.l(a)(l), 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.

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.