Case ID: f-appx_3/html/0165-01.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, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosa MOJICA-ANTON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4155.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 9, 2001.
    Decided Feb. 22, 2001.
    Margaret McLeod Cain, Margaret McLeod Cain, P.C., Charlottesville, VA, for appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Bruce A. Pagel, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, VA, for appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Rosa Mojica-Anton appeals her conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a), 846 (West 1999). Mojica-Anton argues there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction and that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant her request for a downward departure. We disagree.

The Government presented evidence establishing Mojica-Anton’s possession and distribution of controlled substances. The Government also presented evidence of Mojica-Anton’s involvement in arranging drug sales. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find the evidence was sufficient to convict Mojica-Anton. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).

Additionally, the district court did not abuse its discretion by choosing to deny Mojica-Anton’s request for downward departure. The district court correctly recognized that Mojica-Anton had failed to present any adequate ground for departure. See United States v. Perkins, 108 F.3d 512, 515 (4th Cir.1997) (stating that “disparate sentences among codefendants is an impermissible ground for departure”).

Accordingly, we affirm Mojica-Anton’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.