Case ID: f-appx_6/html/0500-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Pedro NUNEZ, also known as Pete Nunez, Appellant.
    No. 00-3188.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted March 14, 2001.
    Filed March 22, 2001.
    Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and PERRY, District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM.

While working as an informant for state police, drug defendant John Fuller twice bought pounds of methamphetamine from a coworker, Pedro Nunez. Rejecting an entrapment defense, a jury convicted Nunez of possession with intent to distribute drugs. On appeal, Nunez contends his entrapment defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt because the Government failed to show Nunez was predisposed to sell drugs before Fuller approached him. See United States v. Berg, 178 F.3d 976, 980 (8th Cir.1999) (explaining entrapment defense). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we conclude the jury could reasonably find Nunez was not entrapped. When Fuller mentioned he was involved in a drug transaction with someone else, Nunez volunteered to supply Fuller with large quantities of drugs in the future. From the circumstances surrounding Nunez’s illegal conduct, the jury could reasonably infer Nunez already had experience and contacts in the drug trafficking business and took full advantage of them when the opportunity arose. We thus summarily affirm Nunez’s conviction. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 
      
       The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.