Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02323/USCOURTS-ca8-07-02323-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricardo Navarrete-Navarrete
Appellant
United States
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 07-2323

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Ricardo Navarrete-Navarrete,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

District of Nebraska.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

 Submitted: May 15, 2008

Filed: July 31, 2008

________________

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Navarrete-Navarrete (Navarrete) was convicted of possession with

intent to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to do the same. See 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1), and 846. After sentencing by the district court,1

 he filed a timely

notice of appeal challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 07-2323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/31/2008 Entry ID: 3456876
-2-

Background

During a controlled buy supervised by the Nebraska State Patrol, Ida Crawford

purchased methamphetamine from Pascual Santana. Crawford, a confidential

informant, testified that she waited while Santana left to retrieve the drugs. Santana's

movements that day were tracked by Nebraska State Patrol Sergeant Kevin Ryan, who

testified that while conducting aerial surveillance he watched Santana drive to

Navarrete's house, enter, and then return to Crawford. Pursuant to a search warrant,

the police searched Navarrete's residence later that day, finding a small amount of

methamphetamine, eight pounds of MSM (a horse feed additive commonly used to

increase the volume of methamphetamine), and a digital scale.

At trial, the Government introduced five witnesses – Andrew Dorothy, Keith

Brooks, Alicia Landa, Heather Cronkhite, and Ryan Devine – who testified pursuant

to plea agreements that Navarrete sold them methamphetamine in aggregate amounts

ranging from 1⁄2 ounce to 8 pounds. They testified that Navarrete knew that they were

selling the drugs he sold to them, and that the buyer would wait in either Navarrete's

computer room or his shed while he retrieved the drugs to be sold. Further, they

testified that he would "front" the drugs to them – providing the drugs on credit –

receiving payment only after they had resold the drugs. Nebraska State Patrol

Investigator Jamey Balthazor testified that "fronting" is consistent with drug

distribution.

After a jury conviction on both counts, Navarrete was sentenced to 188 months

in prison and 5 years of supervised release. On appeal, Navarrete argues that his Rule

29 motion for acquittal should have been granted because the evidence was

insufficient to support a conviction. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.

Appellate Case: 07-2323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/31/2008 Entry ID: 3456876
-3-

Sufficiency of the Evidence

From Navarrete's brief it is unclear whether he appeals both convictions or,

alternatively, only the conspiracy conviction. Interpreting the brief generously, we

analyze both counts for sufficiency of the evidence, which "[w]e review de novo . .

. examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and giving the

verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences. The verdict will not be disturbed

unless no reasonable construction of the evidence will support the jury's verdict."

United States v. Detweiler, 454 F.3d 775, 777 (8th Cir. 2006) (internal marks

omitted). "It is axiomatic that we do not review questions involving the credibility of

witnesses, but leave credibility questions to the jury." United States v. Montano, 506

F.3d 1128, 1133 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal marks omitted).

"To establish that a defendant conspired to distribute drugs under 21 U.S.C. §

846, the government must prove: (1) that there was a conspiracy, i.e., an agreement

to distribute the drugs; (2) that the defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) that the

defendant intentionally joined the conspiracy." United States v. Jiminez, 487 F.3d

1140, 1146 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal marks omitted). "The conspiracy's existence may

be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence," United States v. Cain, 487 F.3d 1108,

1111 (8th Cir.) (internal marks omitted) cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 648 (2007), and "[i]n

this Circuit, a series of drug deals for resale can prove a conspiracy to distribute,"

United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134, 1152 (8th Cir. 1996).

The Government presented ample evidence to convict Navarrete. Five

witnesses testified that Navarrete repeatedly sold them drugs with the sometimes tacit,

sometimes express understanding that those drugs would then be resold. Evidence of

this understanding is bolstered by witness testimony that Navarrete "fronted" the

drugs. Navarrete's argument, such as it is, rests on credibility attacks leveled at the

Government's witnesses. Specifically, Navarrete argues that much of the witness

testimony was incredible since it was given pursuant to plea agreements. However,

Appellate Case: 07-2323 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/31/2008 Entry ID: 3456876
-4-

"the fact that a witness may receive a reduced sentence in exchange for his testimony

does not categorically make the testimony infirm." United States v. Jakoubek, 411

F.3d 951, 953 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 546 U.S. 989 (2005). Rather, "[i]t is the sole

province of the jury to weigh the credibility of a witness." United States v. Martinez,

958 F.2d 217, 218 (8th Cir. 1992). Finally, Navarrete argues that the MSM and the

digital scale have plausible legal uses. Yet the jury was aware of these possible uses.

Moreover, the Government introduced evidence independent of these two pieces of

evidence, including methamphetamine found at Navarrete's residence, testimony that

Navarrete repeatedly sold large quantities of the drug, and testimony that Santana

went to Navarrete's house to procure drugs that were then sold to Crawford. The

sufficiency challenge to the conspiracy conviction is denied.

Turning to Navarrete's challenge to his conviction for possession with intent to

distribute, the two elements – possession and intent to distribute – are met. Possession

can be actual or constructive, and "an individual has constructive possession of

contraband if he has . . . dominion over the premises in which the contraband is

concealed." United States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692, 697 (8th Cir. 2002) (internal marks

omitted). The methamphetamine found at Navarrete's residence is sufficient to

establish constructive possession. Regarding intent to distribute, that element can be

shown by even "a small amount [of drugs], if bolstered by other evidence." Delpit,

94 F.3d at 1153. In this case, there was ample additional evidence, including the

MSM, a scale, and witness testimony. The evidence is sufficient to support the

verdict. Navarrete's arguments to the contrary, as stated above, are without merit.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

________________

Appellate Case: 07-2323 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/31/2008 Entry ID: 3456876