2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-19-2011

USA v. Manuel Chireno-Gil

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 10-2982

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Manuel Chireno-Gil" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 518.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011/518
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 10-2982

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

MANUEL CHIRENO-GIL,

 Appellant

_____________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2-09-cr-00801-001

District Judge: The Honorable Timothy J. Savage

_____________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

September 14, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

(Filed: September 19, 2011)

_____________________

 OPINION

_____________________ 

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

A grand jury returned a one-count indictment against Manuel Chireno-Gil, 

charging him with attempted possession with the intent to distribute five kilograms 
2

or more of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1). After the close 

of the government’s case in chief, Chireno-Gil moved for a judgment of acquittal 

under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a). The United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the motion. Thereafter, the jury 

found Chireno-Gil guilty as charged. Chireno-Gil renewed his motion under Rule 

29(c) to no avail. The District Court sentenced Chireno-Gil to, inter alia, 120 

months’ imprisonment. This timely appeal followed, challenging the District 

Court’s denial of the Rule 29 motion.1 We will affirm. 

We “review[] the sufficiency of the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the government and must credit all available inferences in favor of the 

government.” United States v. Riddick, 156 F.3d 505, 509 (3d Cir. 1998). If a 

rational juror could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt, we must sustain the verdict. United States v. Cartwright, 359 F.3d 281, 286 

(3d Cir. 2004). 

Chireno-Gil contends that the District Court erred because the government 

failed to offer evidence that permits an inference that he knew he was tendering 

money in exchange for a controlled substance. The District Court denied the 

motion summarily. After consideration of the government’s case-in-chief, we 

conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find beyond a reasonable 

 

1

 The District Court exercised jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1291.
3

doubt that Chireno-Gil knew that the “50 kilos,” which he was about to receive in 

exchange for a backpack full of $35,000 in cash, were controlled substances. We 

will affirm.