United States v. Teaff

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 21, 2002
Docket00-40625
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Teaff (United States v. Teaff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Teaff, (5th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

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

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Reyna
148 F.3d 540 (Fifth Circuit, 1998)
United States v. Jo Ann Laca Gibson
963 F.2d 708 (Fifth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Jose Angel Mendoza
226 F.3d 340 (Fifth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Teaff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-teaff-ca5-2002.