
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lance E. LIVINGSTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-51608
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 5, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Scott M. Tidwell, Tidwell & Tidwell, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Lance E. Livingston appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine. Livingston argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the district court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the spoliation of evidence.

Livingston’s argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence does not address the evidence presented on the elements of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. He contends that the evidence did not show that he actually possessed or distributed methamphetamine. Livingston was charged and convicted of conspiracy and aiding and abetting. Thus, the Government was not required to prove that he actually possessed or distributed methamphetamine. See United States v. Delagarza-Villarreal, 141 F.3d 133, 140 (5th Cir. 1997). A reasonable trier of fact could have found Livingston guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute and aiding and abetting distribution beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir.2000).

Livingston’s challenge to the failure of the district court to instruct the jury on spoliation of evidence is also without merit. The record shows that the Government did not act in bad faith in the loss of the recorded interview of Livingston by Detective Mobley. See United States v. Wise, 221 F.3d 140, 156 (5th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     