Unpublished Disposition, 928 F.2d 1137 (9th Cir. 1991)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 928 F.2d 1137 (9th Cir. 1991)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.German DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 90-50173.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 20, 1991.* Decided March 25, 1991.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; No. CR-88-0931-DVK, David V. Kenyon, District Judge, Presiding.

C.D. Cal.

AFFIRMED.

Before CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, DAVID R. THOMPSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

German De La Cruz appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, on one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute 55 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. De La Cruz contends that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the verdict. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

In order to preserve the issue of whether sufficient evidence supports the conviction, "the defendant must move for a judgment of acquittal during the trial pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a)." United States v. Ward, 914 F.2d 1340, 1346 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, the record reveals that De La Cruz failed to move for a judgment of acquittal during the trial. Accordingly, we find that De La Cruz has waived all rights to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.1 

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, we deny De La Cruz's request for oral argument

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

 1

Even if the issue were not foreclosed, sufficient evidence supports De La Cruz's conviction. See United States v. Harden, 846 F.2d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 1988)

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.