IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50542 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES DEAN MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. W-00-CR-126-ALL -------------------- February 1, 2002 Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Dean Miller appeals his conviction for

manufacturing methamphetamine. He argues that in denying his

motion to suppress, the district court erroneously determined that

consent to search had been given by his sister, the owner of the

premises. Miller’s argument is misguided, however, because the

district court did not deny the motion to suppress based on the

consent-exception, but rather on the exigent circumstances

presented by the methamphetamine lab. Because Miller makes no

challenge to the district court’s determination that exigent

circumstances justified the search, any such challenge is deemed

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 01-50542 -2-

waived. See United States v. Fagan,

, 1015 n.10 (5th

Cir. 1987).

Miller also argues that the evidence was insufficient to

support his conviction. He argues that given the testimony

regarding the time he was arrested and the amount of time that the

methamphetamine was cooking, it was apparent that someone other

than he had been manufacturing the methamphetamine. Because

Miller failed to renew his motion for a judgment of acquittal at

the close of all the evidence, we review his argument for plain

error. See United States v. Pierre,

(5th Cir.

1992)(en banc). Accordingly, review of the sufficiency of the

evidence is limited to the determination of "whether there was a

manifest miscarriage of justice." United States v. Laury,

(5th Cir. 1995)(citation omitted).

Miller’s argument is based on a mischaracterization of

the narcotics agent’s testimony. Moreover, it ignores the fact

that his common-law wife testified that he asked her to return to

the house to turn off the "cook." The judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.