Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02714/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02714-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Reyes Manuel Ayon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2714

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the District

v. * of Minnesota.

*

Reyes Manuel Ayon, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 13, 2006

Filed: February 17, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Reyes Manuel Ayon drove a truck containing marijuana and amphetamine to

a drug deal with an undercover agent. The exchange was videotaped by law

enforcement. Ayon admitted his role in the marijuana deal, but maintained he did not

know about the amphetamine. A jury convicted Ayon of conspiracy to distribute and

possess with intent to distribute at least 150 pounds of marijuana, conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute at least at least 500 grams of

amphetamine, aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and

aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute amphetamine. The district

Appellate Case: 05-2714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2006 Entry ID: 2011118
*

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. 

-2-

court*

 sentenced Ayon to ninety-six months in prison, in the middle of the advisory

Guidelines range. 

On appeal, Ayon concedes the evidence was sufficient to support his

convictions on the marijuana counts, but argues the evidence was insufficient to

support his convictions on the amphetamine counts. Viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude a reasonable jury could find Ayon

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. McKay. 431 F.3d 1085, 1094

(8th Cir. 2005). As the district court instructed the jury, the Government was only

required to prove Ayon knowingly possessed a controlled substance, not that he

knew he possessed amphetamine. United States v. Sheppard, 219 F.3d 766, 769 (8th

Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Hussein, 351 F.3d 9, 18 (1st Cir. 2003)

(collecting cases). Contrary to Ayon’s assertion, United States v. Ausler, 395 F.3d

918, 920 (8th Cir. 2005), does not hold otherwise. In Ausler, we noted that although

the Government need not prove a defendant possessed a particular drug, the

Government failed to object to the court’s instruction that the jury had to find Ausler

possessed crack. Id. Thus, the instruction became the law of the case. Id. 

In Ayon’s case, the court did not instruct the jury that it had to find Ayon

possessed amphetamine. In any event, the evidence at trial established Ayon knew

about the amphetamine contained in the hidden compartment with the bulk of the

marijuana. The videotape showed Ayon stood guard while coconspirators unloaded

the hidden compartment, Ayon saw the amphetamine, the deal was to include

methamphetamine, and Ayon was within earshot when the undercover officer asked

about the “CR,” a Spanish slang term for amphetamine or methamphetamine. Ayon

gave no indication that he did not know about the amphetamine, and played his part

in concluding the deal. 

Appellate Case: 05-2714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2006 Entry ID: 2011118
-3-

Ayon also argues we should remand for resentencing because the district court

committed error in setting the sentence as if the amphetamine was an equivalent

amount of methamphetamine. The district court simply followed an applicable

Guidelines amendment setting the same marijuana drug equivalency computation for

amphetamine as methamphetamine. The Sentencing Commission adopted the

amendment in response to Congress’s directive to increase the penalties for

amphetamine to make them comparable to methamphetamine. Contrary to Ayon’s

assertion, the Sentencing Commission acted within its authority in adopting the

amendment. 

We thus affirm Ayon’s conviction and sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2714 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2006 Entry ID: 2011118