Case ID: f-appx_673/html/0765-01.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. Cleotha YOUNG, AKA Stinker, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50516
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted January 12, 2017  Pasadena, California
    Filed January 17, 2017
    Jose Castillo, Assistant U.S. Attorney, US Department of Justice, Southern District of California, San Diego, CA, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Emily J. Keifer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, David Daniel Leshner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Todd W. Robinson, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Stephen Hing Wong, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Keith H. Rutman, Attorney, Keith Rut-man, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cleotha Young appeals his conviction following a jury trial for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. After the jury found Young guilty of that offense, Young filed a post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 and argued that the government had not met its burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the scope of Young’s agreement with his co-conspirators encompassed in excess of 1,000 kilograms of marijuana. The district court denied his motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, United States v. Navarrette-Aguilar, 813 F.3d 785, 793 (9th Cir. 2015), it is clear that the jury had sufficient evidence by which it could find that 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana “fell within the scope of [Young’s] agreement with his coconspirators,” United States v. Banuelos, 322 F.3d 700, 704 (9th Cir. 2003). The record sufficiently details the coconspirators’ knowledge of the amount of marijuana being imported, and it is evident that Young was informed of all material issues relating to the operation. As such, we are satisfied that a rational trier of fact could have found that Young’s agreement encompassed more than 1,000 kilograms of marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt. See Navarrette-Aguilar, 813 F.3d at 793.

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