* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 9, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51711 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Pl aint iff- Appellee,
versus JOSEFINA DOMINGUEZ-JUAREZ, DefendantAppellant.

--------------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-115

---------------------------------------------------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART AND PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Josefina Dom

in guez-Juarez was convicted of aiding and abetting the possession of 1,000 kilo grams or mo re of marijuana wit h int ent to distribute (Count One) and making a building available fo r unlawfully storing or distributing a controlled substance (Count Two). She appeals, arguing that th e evidence was not legally sufficient to support the jury’s verdict on either count. She notes that-2-

government agents, who in th eir undercover capacities lo aded marijuana from her residence and int o
a tractor-trailer, had not seen her before the day they removed the marijuana from her residence and th at her name had not been mentioned in any investigative reports th at they had read before seeing her. S he also contends that the evidence established only that she was present when the marijuana
was removed from her residence, th at she asked why the tractor-trailer had not been pulled clo ser to her residence, and th at she asked th at the tractor-trailer be lo aded faster because they were drawing too much attention. S he asserts th at her mere presence, even wit h knowledge th at a crime was being
com mit ted, was insufficient to support her convictions, that any involvement by her lasted no mo re th an one minut e, and th at her statem ents were consistent wit h an inno cent person who wanted drug smugglers to leave as soon as possible because they were attracting attention. Do minguez-Juarez properl y preserved th ese issues by mo ving fo r a judgm ent of acqui

ttal at the close of the Government’s case and at th e clo se of all evidence. Therefore, t his court reviews her convictions to determ ine whether a rational trier of fact could have fo und th at the evidence established the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). To support Dom inguez-Juarez’s aiding and abetting conviction, t h e Government had to establish th at she aided and abetted b oth possession of the marijuana and the int ent to distribute it
. S ee United States v. Delagarza-Villarreal , 141 F.3d 133, 140 (5th Cir. 1997). That is, th e Government had to establ ish t hat she “became associated with, participated in, and in
som e way acted to further th e possession and distribution of drugs.” U nited States v. Delgado , 256 F.3d 264, 27 4 (5th Cir. 2001). Dominguez-Juarez must have shared in the intent to commit the of fense, and she must have played an active role in its commission. See id.-3-

The testimo ny established th at Dom inguez-Juarez owned and had dom inio n and control over th e premises where th e marijuana was stored. Therefore, t he jury reasonably could have fo und th at she aid ed in the possession of the marijuana or constructively possessed it. S ee United States v. Onick , 889 F.2d 1425, 1429 (5th Cir. 1989). T he jury reasonably could have concluded th at Dom inguez-Juarez had knowledge that marijuana was being stored in her residence because a co-defendant informed an undercover government agent that Dominguez-Juarez had been paid to store marijuana. Finally, the jury could infer an int ent to distribute because of the large amo unt of marijuana invo lved. S ee United States v. Lopez , 979 F.2d 1024, 1031 (5th Cir. 1992). The evidence also established th at Dom inguez-Juarez asked why the tractor-trai ler had not been pulled further toward th e back of her residence and ordered the men lo ading the tractor-trailer to mo ve faster because th ey were drawing suspicion and needed to leave. B ased on these statem ents
and the fact that Dom

inguez-Juarez was paid to store marijuana, the jury reasonably could have determ ined th at Dom

inguez-Juarez “knew th at a drug transaction was occurring, th at she associated herself wit h th e actors invo lved in th e transaction, th at she participated in the venture wit h the desire th at th e venture succeed, and th at she perform[ed] some designed or int ended action to achieve the goal of th e crime.” U

nited States v. Jaramillo , 42 F.3d 920, 923 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to support th e aiding and abetting conviction. S ee Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d at 543. To convict D om

inguez-Juarez for maintaining a place to manufacture, distribute, or use drugs, th e jury had to find th at she “manage[d] or control [led] any place, whether permanently or tem porarily,
. . . as an owner . . . [or] occupant, . . . and knowingly and int entionally rent[ed],-4-

lease[d], prof

it [ed] from, or [made] available fo r use, wit h or wit hout com pensation, the place fo r the purpose of unlawfully . . . storing[ or] distributing . . . a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) (2003); see Onick , 889 F.2d at 1431 n.1 (citing § 856(a)(2) (1986)). The evidence established th at Dom inguez-Juarez owned and exercised dom inio n and control over the apartm

ent where the marijuana was stored. Further, a co-defendant t old an underco ver government agent th at Dom inguez-Juarez was paid to store mar i juana. A ccordingly, there was sufficient evidence to support Dominguez-Juarez’s conviction of making a building available for unlawfully st oring or distributing a controlled substance. See Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d at 543
. AFFIRMED.