# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 16 84

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Bl as Acus ta Marq ue z

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 27 , 20 12 Fi le d: Octo be r 30 , 20 12 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MELLOY, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Bl as Acu st a Mar qu ez ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s jud gm en t en te red aft er a jury 1 fo un d hi m gu il ty of po ss es si ng co cai ne wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e, in vi ol at io n o f 21

The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r 1 th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) . The dis tri ct co ur t sen te nc ed hi m to 12 0 m on th s in pri so n a nd 5

y ears of su pe rv is ed rel eas e. Mar qu ez’s co un se l ha s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , arg ui ng th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t th e co nv ic ti on

.

W e ho ld th at th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t. See Uni te d St at es v. Bi rd in e, 51 5 F.3 d 84 2, 84 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (th is co ur t rev ie ws su ffi ci en cy of ev id en ce in li gh t m os t fav or ab le to go ve rn m en t, reso lv in g evi de nt ia ry co nf li ct s in go ve rn m en t’s fav or an d

acce pt in g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at su pp or t jury’s ve rd ic t). A st at e tro op er te st ifi ed th at whe n he st op pe d th e tru ck Mar qu ez was dr iv in g for a tra ffi c vi ol at io n, Mar qu ez was ne rv ou s an d ga ve in co ns is te nt an swe rs to qu es ti on s ab ou t hi s reco rd s. Afte r Mar qu ez co ns en te d to a se arc h , t h e tro op er di sc ov ered 17 .5 ki lo gr am s of

co cai ne be hi nd a pa ne l i n t he tru ck cab , abo ve th e b ed in th e sl eep er bert h. A DEA
sp eci al ag en t te st ifi ed th at in hi s ex pe rie nc e a dr ug de al er wou ld no t le av e su ch a qu an ti ty wit h so m eo ne who do es n o t k n o w he ha s it , an d th at Mar qu ez ga ve in co ns is te nt ex pl an at io ns ab ou t th e $4 ,40 0 fo un d in hi s po ck et an d ad di ti on al de po si t

rece ip ts

. See Uni te d St at es v. Park er, 58 7 F.3 d 87 1, 88 1 (8 th Ci r. 2 0 0 9 ) (fo r po ss es si on wit h i n te nt to di st rib ut e dr ug s, go ve rn m en t m us t pr ov e de fen da nt kn owi ng ly po ss es se d an d in te nd ed to di st rib ut e dr ug s; po s s e s s i o n m ay be

co ns tru ct iv e if de fen da nt ha s kn owl ed ge of ob ject an d in te nt an d ab il it y to co nt ro l it ; kn owl ed ge can be est ab li sh ed by defen da nt ’s con tro l an d d om in io n o ve r ve hi cl e or by la rg e qu an ti ty of dr ug s) ; Uni te d St at es v. Serr an o- Lop ez, 366 F.3 d 62 8, 63 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (ev en if d efen da nt di d n ot own dru gs , it is un li ke ly owne r wou ld pl ace a la rg e qu an ti ty of dr ug s wit h pe rs on who do es no t kn ow it is th ere; la rg e qu an ti ty can in di cat e bo th in te nt to di st rib ut e an d ab il it y to co nt ro l dr ug s fo r co ns tru ct iv e po ss es si on ).

Afte r rev ie win g th e reco rd in de pe nd en tl y un de r Pen so n v . Ohi o, 48 8 U.S. 75 (1 98 8) , we ha ve fo un d no no nf riv ol ou s is su es fo r ap pe al

. Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t is affi rm ed

. W e al so gr an t co un s el le av e to wit hd raw, co nd it io ne d on co un se l

-2

-ad vi si ng th e ap pe ll an t as to th e pr oc ed ur e fo r fil in g a pe ti ti on fo r writ of c e r t i o r a r i ,

an d d en y Marq ue z’s m ot io n fo r ne w app el la te co un se l.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-3

-