Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02319/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02319-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Dorame-Maytorena
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

FILED 

Utiited States Court of Appeals 

Tf"nth Circuit 

FEB 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-2319 

DAVID DORAME-MAYTORENA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

(D.C. No. CR-89-00242-2SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges, and SPARR, District 

Judge.** 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant David Dorame-Maytorena appeals his conviction by a 

jury for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute more 

than 100 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21 u.s.c. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** The Honorable Daniel B. Sparr, United States District Judge 

for the District of Colorado, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 89-2319 Document: 010110099901 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 1 
SS 846(a)(l) and 84l(b)(l)(B). His only contention on appeal was 

that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We 

affirm. 

Defendant relies upon the alleged insufficiency of the 

government's evidence to show that he was a knowing participant in 

a scheme to possess and transport for resale a large quantity of 

marijuana. Defendant was a passenger in a truck which border 

agents stopped and in which they found large quantities of 

marijuana. While the defendant did not take the stand, his 

defense was based upon an assertion that he was simply a 

hitchhiker picked up by his co-defendant, and that he had no 

knowledge of the existence of the marijuana. There was evidence, 

however, that he was in·. the company of co-defendant Michael 

Anthony Picarelli the evening before the arrest, that they shared 

a motel room the night before the crime, that he assisted the codefendant in hitching the trailer to the truck in a remote area 

near the border. And, of course, he was in the vehicle at the 

time it was stopped by border patrol agents. Defendant also 

asserted to the agents that he had crossed the border illegally, 

but the agents were unable to verify any evidence of the crossing 

at the place he identified, even though sensors were in operation 

at that location. Under the circumstances we hold that there is 

sufficient evidence to support the jury verdict finding him 

guilty. 

AFFIRMED. 

-2-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-2319 Document: 010110099901 Date Filed: 02/08/1991 Page: 2