Case ID: f-appx_223/html/0388-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee v. Nixai NORAJ, also known as Nixai Nora, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-50891
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    March 21, 2007.
    Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. AC torney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Raymond Keith Fivecoat, Brockett, Rogers & Fivecoat, Midland, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Nixai Noraj appeals from his conviction of possession of MDMA (ecstasy) with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

The evidence indicated that Chanathasoune Sonesourinhasack (Chan) solicited Noraj for a lengthy taxi ride from Dallas to Odessa, Texas, and that Chansavan Sonesourinhasack (Lou) told Noraj that the purpose of the trip was to deliver drugs. Noraj drove Chan and Lou from Dallas to Odessa in return for a promised payment once the drugs were delivered. Noraj was familiar with ecstasy, having used the drug on four or five occasions, and he was present when Chan gave Lou ten ecstasy pills from a large bag of ecstasy pills during the drive to Odessa. Morever, Noraj used methamphetamine on the trip.

The jury could have inferred from the evidence that Chan possessed ecstasy with the intent to distribute it. See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 169 (5th Cir.1999). The jury could have inferred from the evidence that Noraj associated himself with Chan’s drug-trafficking venture and that he participated in the venture and sought to make it succeed by driving Chan and Lou to Odessa in return for the promised payment. See United States v. Pearson, 667 F.2d 12, 14 (5th Cir.1982). The evidence was sufficient to support Noraj’s conviction. See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir.1998).

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.