Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04448/USCOURTS-ca4-14-04448-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alicia Garcia Rivera
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALICIA GARCIA RIVERA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior

District Judge. (1:13-cr-00222-JCC-2)

Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph R. Conte, LAW OFFICE OF J.R. CONTE, P.L.L.C., Washington, 

D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, 

Edward J. Reilly, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4448 Doc: 47 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Alicia Garcia Rivera appeals from her conviction for 

conspiracy to import heroin. She challenges the district 

court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence and the 

sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. Finding 

no error, we affirm.

We first review Rivera’s argument that the district 

court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she 

made to agents of the Homeland Security Investigations and the 

Drug Enforcement Administration. We review factual findings 

underlying a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress for 

clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v. 

Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). We may reverse for 

clear error only if “left with the definite and firm conviction 

that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Wooden, 

693 F.3d 440, 451 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). Because the district court denied the motion to 

suppress, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the Government, the party prevailing below. United States v. 

Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir. 2013). We defer to the 

district court’s credibility findings. United States v. 

Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 150 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009). After reviewing 

the evidence, we determine that the district court did not err 

in denying the motion to suppress and affirm for the detailed 

Appeal: 14-4448 Doc: 47 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 4
3

reasons stated by the court. United States v. Rivera, No. 

1:13-cr-00222-JCC-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2014).

Next, we address Rivera’s challenge to the sufficiency 

of the evidence. Rivera moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 for a 

judgment of acquittal. We review the denial of a motion for 

judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Strayhorn, 743 

F.3d 917, 921 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2689 (2014). 

A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces “a 

heavy burden.” United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129, 137 (4th 

Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The jury verdict 

must be sustained if “there is substantial evidence in the 

record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the 

government, to support the conviction.” United States v. 

Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is evidence that a 

reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and 

sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond 

a reasonable doubt.” Id. (alteration and internal quotation 

marks omitted). Furthermore, “the jury, not the reviewing 

court, weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any 

conflicts in the evidence presented.” McLean, 715 F.3d at 137 

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Reversal for insufficient 

evidence is reserved for the rare case where the prosecution’s 

Appeal: 14-4448 Doc: 47 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 4
4

failure is clear.” United States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138 

(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

To convict Rivera of conspiracy to import heroin, the 

Government had to prove the following essential elements: (1) an 

agreement between two people to import heroin; (2) the defendant 

knew of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and 

voluntarily participated in the conspiracy. United States v. 

Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010). Having reviewed the 

record, we conclude that Rivera’s conviction was supported by 

sufficient evidence.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-4448 Doc: 47 Filed: 02/18/2015 Pg: 4 of 4