Case ID: f-appx_517/html/0604-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfonso SANCHEZ-ELORZA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-30110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 11, 2013.
    Filed May 7, 2013.
    Anthony G. Hall, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Boise, ID, Michael J. Fica, Assistant U.S., USPO-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Poca-tello, ID, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    David N. Parmenter, Parmenter & Associates, Blackfoot, ID, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CALLAHAN and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

This case arises from the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, such a claim is reviewed de novo. United States v. Ruiz, 462 F.3d 1082, 1087-88 (9th Cir.2006). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the government proved each element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

The record in this case shows more than Appellant’s mere presence in the vehicle. A reasonable juror could have determined that Appellant knew the drugs were in the trunk, that he played a part in putting the drugs in the trunk, that he knew that a drug transaction was going to take place at the Fort Hall casino, and that he accompanied the conspirators to the casino in furtherance of the drug transaction. Appellant “has not pointed to evidence so supportive of innocence that no rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1169 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasis added).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.