United States v. Eulalia Garcia
672 F. App'x 442
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Eulalia Garcia was tried and convicted of possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 841); she was acquitted of a conspiracy charge at trial.
- On appeal, Garcia’s retained counsel (J.M. Alvarez) filed a brief that misidentified the convicted count, arguing incorrectly that Garcia was convicted of conspiracy and acquitted of the substantive offense.
- The sole appellate argument presented (and briefed) challenged sufficiency of the evidence for the conspiracy offense—an issue not actually resulting in conviction.
- The Fifth Circuit treated Garcia’s failure to challenge her actual conviction or sentence as abandonment of those issues and affirmed the district court judgment.
- The court criticized counsel’s brief as exceptionally poor, procedurally deficient, and containing misstatements and typographical errors, and warned counsel that future frivolous filings could result in sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy conviction | Garcia argued evidence was insufficient to convict for conspiracy (counsel misstates the count) | Government argued conviction was for possession with intent to distribute and evidence supported that conviction | Court found appellant abandoned challenges to actual conviction; affirmed district court. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001) (failure to brief an issue is abandonment)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (counsel must support client’s appeal to best of ability; procedures for appointed counsel raising frivolous claims)
- Macklin v. City of New Orleans, 293 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 2002) (sanctions may be warranted for totally meritless, sloppily prepared briefing)
- Carmon v. Lubrizol, 17 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 1994) (imposition of sanctions for poor-quality appellate briefing)
- Cilauro v. Thielsch Eng’g, [citation="123 F. App'x 588"] (5th Cir. 2005) (warning to counsel for filing frivolous brief)
- United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review; any rational trier of fact test)
- United States v. Cain, 440 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2006) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence principles)