FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT DEC 13, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 12327 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 4 8 8 - C R - S L B - P WG U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M A U R I C I O M A R T I N E Z M O R A L E S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D i s tr i c to f A l a b a ma

_________________________ ( D e c e m b e r 13, 2007) B efo re C A R N E S , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A f te ra ju r y tr ia l, M a u r ic io M a r tin e z M o r a le s w a s c o n v ic te d o f c o n s p ir a c y toWe “re view de novo . . . thesufficie ncy of the e videnceto sustain a conviction, viewing 1 the evidenc e in the light most favorableto the g overnment and dra wingall rea sonable inferenc es and credibility

choice s in favor of

the jury ’s verdict.” United States v. Tampas, 493 F.3d 1291, 1297-98 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). To support a guilty verdic t, “[i] t is not ne c e ssa ry that th ee vid e nc ee xclu dee ve ry re a so na blehy po the sis of

inn oc e nc eor

bewh olly inconsistent with every

conclusion except that of guilt . . . .” United States v. Anderson, 289 F .3d 13 21 , 1 32 6 ( 11 th C ir . 2 00 2) (q uo tatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) . Rather, “ [t]hee vid e nc eis s uf fi c ie nt s o long a s a re asonabletrier of fac t, choosingamongrea sonable interpretations of the e vidence , c ou ld f ind guil t beyon d a

re a so na bledo ub t.”Un ite d St ate s v . Pi ne iro, 38 9 F .3 d 1 35 9, 13 67 (1 1th Cir. 2004). 2 di s tr i but e a nd pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 846; pos s e s s i on w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m e tha m phe t a m i ne , i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C ) ; pos s e s s i on of a f i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a drug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 24 (c ); and p osse ss i on of a f i re ar m w hi l e bei ng an i l l egal al i en, i n v i ol at i on of 18 U . S . C . § 9 22 (g)( 5). O n app ea l , M oral es chal l enges onl y hi s c on vi ct i on for posse ss i on of a fi re ar m i n furthera nce of a drug t ra ff i cki ng offe nse, ar gu i ng thatthere w as i nsuffi ci entevi dence t o con vi cthi m of thi s f i re ar m offe nse. S peci fi ca l l y, M oral es 1 m a i nt a i ns tha tthe gove r nm e ntf a i l e d t o pr ove a s uf

f i c i e ntne xus be tw e e n the fi rearm s fo u n d i n h i s v eh i cl e an d h i s d ru g o ffen ses. T o c onvi c ta de f

e nda ntof pos s e s s i on of

a f i r e a r m i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a drug tra ff i cki ng offe nse, the go vernm entm ustprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou btthat

“ du ri ng and i n rel at i on t o any cr i m e of vi ol ence or drug tra ff i cki ng cr i m e . . . [he] us e [ d] orc a r r i e [ d] a f

i r e a r m , or. . . , i n f

ur the r a nc e of

a ny s uc h c r i m e , pos s e s s e [ d]3

a f ir e a r m .” S e e 1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( A ) . F o ra d e f e n d a n t’s p o s s e s s io n to b e “in f ur the r a nc e of

” a drug tr a f

f i c ki ng c r i m e , “ the r e m us tbe ‘ s om e ne xus be tw e e n the f i r e a r m a nd the drug s e l l i ng ope r a t i on. ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a , 447 F . 3d 1327, 1340 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng U ni t e d S t a t e s v. T i m m ons , 283 F . 3d 1246, 1253 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ) . I n de t e r m i ni ng w he the ra ne xus e xi s t s s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t a i n the c onvi c t i on, w e c ons i de r , i nt e ra l i a , “ the ty pe of drug a c t i vi ty tha ti s be i ng c onduc t e d, a c c e s s i bi l i ty of the f i r e a r m , the ty pe of

the w e a pon, w he the rthe w e a pon i s s t ol e n, the s t a tus of the pos s e s s i on ( l e gi t i m a t e ori l l e ga l ) , w he the rthe gun i s l oa de d, pr oxi m i ty t o the drugs ordrug pr of i t s , a nd the t i m e a nd c i r c um s t a nc e s unde rw hi c h the gun i s f ound. ” T i m m ons , 283 F . 3d a t1253 (quo t at i on m ar ks om i t t ed). H er e, su ff

icien t ev id en ce su p p o rted th e ju ry ’s fin d in g th at M o ra les’s p o ssessi o n o f th e fi rearm s w as “ i n fu rth eran ce o f” h i s d ru g traffi ck i n g o ffen ses. T he s e a r c h of

M or a l e s ’ s ve hi c l e unc ove r e d: a f i r e a r m on the r i ghts i de of the dri ver’ s s ea t , w here M oral es w as si t t i ng w hen o ff i ce rs re spon ded t o t he sc ene; anot her f i re ar m behi nd the fr on tpass enger’ s s ea t ; m etham ph et am i ne i n t he po cket of the dr i ve r ’ s s i de doora nd be ne a th the s t e e r i ng w he e l ; a gl a s s pi pe us e d f or s m oki ng m e tha m phe t a m i ne unde r ne a th the dr i ve r ’ s s e a t ; a nd $4, 800 i n the gl ove c om pa r t m e nt . T he f

i r e a r m s , w hi c h M or a l e s a dm i t t e d w e r e hi s , w e r e l oa de d a nd4

e a s i l y a c c e s s i bl e . T he f i r e a r m s w e r e f

ound i n c l os e pr oxi m i ty t o the m e tha m phe t a m i ne a nd the m one y , w hi c h the j ur y r e a s ona bl y be l i e ve d t o be drug p r o f its . T he go vernm entpres ent ed evi dence thatdrug deal er s f re qu ent l y c arry f i r e a r m s t o pr ot e c tthe m s e l ve s , the i rdrugs a nd the i rm one y a nd tha tone of M oral es ’ s gun s w as a type c om m on l y posse ss ed by drug tra ff i cker s. A l coce r J i m e ne z S a bi no, M or a l e s ’ s c oc ons pi r a t or , t e s t i f i e d tha the ha d be e n buy i ng m etham ph et am i ne fr om M oral es for e i gh t ee n m on ths and t hathe had o bser ved M o ral es carrying a fi rearm w h en M o ral es w en tt o g etd ru g s, b u tn o tato th er t i m es. A r e a s ona bl e j ur y c oul d i nf e rf r om thi s e vi de nc e tha tthe purpos e of the fi re ar m s f

ou nd i n t he ca r w as t o p rot ec tM oral es ’ s drugs and d rug p rofi t s thatw er e a ls o f o u n d in th e c a r . A c c o r d in g ly , th e r e w a s s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e in th e r e c o r d to es t abl i sh a nexus bet w ee n t he fi re ar m s a nd M oral es ’ s drug t ra ff i cki ng offe nses a nd f orthe j ur y t o c onc l ude be y ond a r e a s ona bl e doubttha tthe f i r e a r m s w e r e not m e r e l y pr e s e nt , a s M or a l e s c ont e nds , butw e r e pos s e s s e d i n f ur the r a nc e of M o ral es’ s d ru g traffi ck i n g o ffen ses. A F F I R M E D .