The Honor able Joseph M. Hood, Chief United States District J udg e for the Easter n District * of Ke ntucky , sitti ng by

desig nation. NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 07a0537n.06 Filed: Jul y

31, 2007 NO. 06-3252 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Plaintif f-Appellee

, ) ) ON APP EA Lfr om t he Un ite d St a te s v. ) District Court for the Southern ) District of Ohio. J U A N A N T O N IO B E R

N A L- B E R

N A L, )

) OPI

NI ON Defendant-

Appellant

. ) ) )

Before: RY AN and GRIF F IN, Circ uit Jud ges; HOOD, Chief District Judge. * HOOD, Chief

District J udg e. De fenda nt / Appellant J uan Antonio B erna l-Be rnal (“ De fe nd ant” or

“ B e rn a l” ) c ha lle ng e s th e dis tr ic t cou rt ’s den ia l of his mot ion

fo r a c qu itt a l. Def endant wa s convicted in the U nited States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for conspiring to possess with intent to di stribute over f ive kilogr ams of coc aine a nd more than 500 g rams of a

mix ture or substanc e conta i n i n g a d etectable amount of me thamphetamine. F or the

rea sons that follow, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt

. On April 7, 2005, a g rand jury for the Souther

n District of Ohio indicted B erna l for one c ount of conspiringto posse ss w ith intent to distribute more than five kilogr ams of coca ine, in violation2

of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)( 1)(A) (ii), and more than 500 g rams of a mix ture

or su bs tanc e c on tain in g a detec ta ble a mou nt o f m e tha

mph e tamin e , in

vio la tio n o f 2 1 U .S. C. § 841(a) (1) a

nd 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)( A)(viii). F ollowing a jury trial, Be rnal wa s found g uilty on thi s o ne c ount a

nd wa s su bs e qu e ntl y

se nte nc e d to 12 1 mo nth s. B e rn a l f ile d a ti me ly

no tic e of a pp e a l. B e rn a l argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d b y de nyinghis mot ion

fo r a c qu itt a l a s to Co un t 1 becau se t he ev id ence p res ent ed b y th e governm ent was in su ffi cie nt to supp ort th e con vi cti on . By failing to rene w his Rule 29 motion at t he close of all evide nce, B erna l waived a ny objection to the sufficie ncy

of the evidenc e in his conviction. Howeve r, even if Be rnal had re newe d his moti on, the

e vid e nc e of

B e rn a l’ s g uil t wa s su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a c on vic tio n. As a

re su lt, the dis tr ic t c ourt

did not err in de ny ing his motion for a cquittal with respec t to Count 1. Bernal was arr e ste d in

Ne w M e xico a ft e r l aw e nf or c e me nt o ff

ic e rs pu lle d o ve r t

he c a r i n which he w as a pa sseng er a nd, with th e co n s ent of the car’ s driver, Ma uricio Villare al-Ga

rcia , sear ched the car

and found a

pproxi mately

14.1 k i l o gra m s o f cocaine a nd 893.8 g rams of methamphetamine in a

false c ompartment. Sgt

. M igue l Mendez of the Ne w Mexico St ate Police interrog ated Ber

nal and, accor ding to Sg t. Mendez, Be rnal a dmitted that he knowing ly transporte d the dr ug s and that he ha d ta

ke n s imi lar t

ri ps in t he pa st. B oth

B e rn a l and

Vi lla re a l- Ga rc ia a g re e d to tr a ve l to the ir

int e nd e d d e sti natio n, Col umb us , O hio , to c on du c t a c on tr oll e d d e liv e ry

of the dr ug s. The buy er, O ctavio Solano-Rodrig uez, was arre sted and late r indicted a s the third conspirator

. Be rnal e x erc ised his rig ht to trial and moved for a judgm en t o f ac q u i t t al at the c lose of the g overnme nt’s evidenc e. Howe ver, B erna l failed to re new this motion at the close of a ll evidence

. “Abse nt a showing of a ma nifest miscarr iag e of justice, this cour t will not review a district court de nial of a Rule 29 motion wher e a de fenda nt does not rene w that motion at the close of a ll the3

evidenc e.” United States v. W illiams , 94 0 F .2 d 17 6, 18 0 (6 th Cir

. 19 91 ). Vi e wi ng the e vid e nc e in t h e l i gh tm o s tfa v o rab l e t o t h e gov ern m en t , t h e C o u rt m u s t ev al u at e wh et h er a m an i fe s tm i s ca rr i age of justice would re sult due to this wai v er. Id. B e c a us e the e vid e nc e , v ie we d in the lig ht m os t fa vo ra ble to the g ov e rnme nt, wa s su ff ic ie nt to c on vic t B e rn a l, B e rn a l ha s n ot d e mon str a te d th a t hi s waiver of Rule 29 re lief constitutes a manife st miscarriag e of justice. To prove c onspiracy

under 21 U .S.C. § 846, “the g overnme nt must pro v e t h e existence of

an a g r e e me n t to v io late th e dr u g la w s an d th a t e a c h c o n s p ir a to r kn e w o f , in te n ded to join, and participated in the conspira cy .” United St ates v. Gaitan-Ac eve do , 148 F.3d 577, 586 ( 6th Cir. 1998). Th e e le me nts of

a c ha rg e of po sse ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o d ist

ri bu te ill e g a l dr

ug s und er 21 U .S. C. § 841(a) (1) a

re a s follows: “(1) the defe ndant knowing ly , (2) possesse d a contr olled substance, ( 3) with intent to dis tribute.” United States v. Coffee , 434 F.3d 887, 897 ( 6th Cir. 2006). Sg t. M e nd e z te sti fi e d th a t B e rn a l c on fe sse d to havin g kn ow le dg e of and a de lib e ra te ro le in the conspira cy . Be rnal wa s arr ested while r iding in a ve hicle ca rry in g c ocaine and methamphe tamine and, ac cordingto Sgt. Mendez’s testimony , later describe d his role in the conspiracy to possess and distrib u te th e s e dr

u g s d u r in g an u n r e c o r d e d in te r r o g a ti o n . Sg t. M e n d e z a ls o te s ti f ie d th a t Be rnal confe ssed that he ha d acc ompanied Vill are al-Ga rcia on three previous trips to transfe r money from Ohio to A rizona and bring back drug s from Arizona to O hio; that he k n ew h e w as transfe rring

coca ine; t h at h e had been pa id $1,500 for the f irst two trips and $3,000 for the third trip; that he expected to be pa id $3,000 for this latest fourth trip; that he knew the re cipient of the dr ug s; and that he kn e w h owthe tr ans fe r o f the dr ug s took pla c e . B a se d on the e vid e nc e in the re c or d, the jur y c ou ld

rea sonably

infer that Be rnal c onspired to violate the dr ug laws cha

rg ed. Even if B erna l had re newe d his moti on for a cquittal at t he close of all evidenc e, he ha s not4

shown t h at the district court would have er red in de ny ing the motion. Under F eder al Rule of Criminal Pr o c e d

u r e 2 9 , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt “ mu s t e n te r a ju d g me n t o f a c qu itta l o f an y o f f e n se for which the e vidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” F ed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). “The standar d for e valu at i n g cl ai ms that a conviction is not supported by sufficie nt evidence prese nts a very difficult hurdle f

or the c riminal appellant . . . .” Un ite d S tat es v . M ax we ll , 1 60 F .3 d 10 71 , 10 77 (6 th Cir . 1 99 8) . “ ‘[T ]he re le va nt q ue sti on is w he the r, a ft e r v ie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the pr osecution, any rational trier of fac t c ould have f ound the essential e lements of the

c r im e b e y o n d a r e a s o n a

b le d o u b t. ’” Id. (q u o t i n g J

ac k so n v . V irg ini a , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (empha sis in Jack

son )). Be rnal c ontends that the g overnme nt’s evidenc e wa s insufficient beca use the testimony

of Sgt. Mendez, who did not rec ord his alleg ed conf ession, was so unre liable that no rational trier of fac t could have believed what he said. B erna l argues that Sg t. Mendez’s testimony on New Me x ico State Police proce dure w hen eng ag ing in dialogue with prospective defendants conflicted with that of his fellow off

icer , Sgt. Rudy

Mora, w ho initially

pulled over V illarea l-Gar cia’ s vehicle. Fur thermore , althoug h Sgt. Mendez conducte d the entire interrog ation in Spanish, Ber nal contends that, b e c a us e he is a

Spa nis h s pe a ke r a

nd be c a us e he wa s in

c us tod y fr om 1 1:2 8 a .m. un til his interrog ation at 3:50 p.m., his isolation and anxiety may have e licited a fa lse confe ssion. However , B e rn a l ne ve r c ha lle ng e d th e le g a lity of his c on fe ssi on

be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt

. B e rn a l’ s ar g ume nt ch a lle ng e s the c re dib ili ty of Sg t. Me nd e z a s a witn e ss, no t, as he c la ims , the s ufficie ncy of t he evidence. “[D]etermining the cre dibilit y of wit nesses is a task for the jury , not this court.” Un ite d S

tat es v . Ke lly , 2 0 4 F. 3 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 6 (6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g United States v. Hi lli ar d , 11 F. 3d 61 8, 62 0 ( 6th

Cir . 1 99 3) ); see United States v. Adamo , 742 F.2d 927, 935 ( 6th Cir.5

1984) ( “ A tr ia l ju d g e c o n s id e r in g a Ru le 2 9 mo ti o n ma y n e it h e r w e ig h c o n f

li c ti n g e v id ence nor consider the cre dibilit y

of witnesses.” ). The jury was entitl ed to accept the te stimony of Sg t. Mendez despite B erna l’s counsel’s e ffor ts to discredit his te s ti mo ny b y q u e s ti o ning him on cr oss-examination about his failure to rec ord the intervie w. For the re asons stated a

bove, we AF F IRM the dec ision of the district court.