2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-17-2009 

# U SA v . El vi s R i ve r a P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2354

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Elvi s R ive r a" (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 83. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/83NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2354

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. E L VI S RI VE RA , A p p e llan t.

___________ O n A ppeal fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 1- 07- cr - 00029- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e R aym ond L . Fi nch

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

D ece m ber4, 2009 B E F O R E : M cK E E , F U E N T E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: D ece m ber17, 2009)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________ N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge.2

T h e G o v e rn m e n t f

iled a o n e -c o u n t cr im in a l in f o rm a tio n a g a in st A p p e llan t, E lv is R i ver a, char gi ng hi m w i t h pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e more t han fi ve gr ams of cr ack c ocai ne, a vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . §§ 841( a) ( 1) and ( b) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i i ) . A ft erhi s i ni t i al t r i al ended i n m i s t r i al , R i ver a w as t r i ed a s econd t i m e and f ound gui l t y . T he D i s t r i ct C our ts ent ence d hi m t o t en y ear s ’ i m pr i s onm ent . R i ver a appe al s , chal l engi ng t he s uffi ci encyof the evi dence . W e appl ya def er ent i al s t andar d of r evi ew w hen dec i di ng w hethera j ur y ’ s ver di ctr es t s on s uffi ci entevi dence . W e w i l l aff i r m her e bec aus e, aft er r evi ew i ng t he evi dence i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , w e conc l ude thatany r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he es s ent i al el ement s of the cr i m e cha r ged bey ond a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. S e e U n itedS ta tes v . D ia llo , 5 7 5 F .3 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). R i ver a w as arr es t ed af

t ers el l i ng cr ack c ocai ne t o an under coverU ni t ed St at es D rug E nfor cementA dm i ni s t r at i on ( D E A ) agenti n St . C r oi x. A s he di d befor e the D i s t r i ctC our t , R i ver a mai nt ai ns on appea l thatt he cr ack c ocai ne thathe s ol d t o t he under coveragentw as di ffe r entfr om t he coc ai ne admi t t ed att r i al as a G overnm ent exhi bi t . I nt er es t i ngl y , he does notcont es tt he fa ctt hathe s ol d cr ack c ocai ne t o t he under coveragent , onl yt hatt he evi dence pr oduced a tt r i al w as nott he s ame cocai ne he so ld to th e D E A o f

f ice r. H e a rg u e s th a t af

ter th e a g e n t tu rn e d th e c ra c k c o c a in e o v e r to th e d ru g c u s to d ia n , it w a s s o m e h o w m in g le d w ith o th e r d ru g s th e a g e n t h a d p u rc h a s e d . A tR i ver a’ s t r i al , t he under coveragentt es t i fi ed that , aft erbuy i ng cr ack c ocai ne f ro m R iv e ra , h e p ro p e rlyse c u re d th e d ru g s a n d tu rn e d th e m o v e r to th e D E A o f f ice r in3

c h a rg e o f

d ru g c u sto d y . T h e G o v e rn m e n t als o p re se n ted tes tim o n yth a t th e a p p ro p ria te p r o c e d u r e s a n d p r o c e s s e s wer e f o l l o wed i n s e c u r i n g t h i s e v i d e n c e . Fu r t h e r , a DEA chemi s tt es t i fi ed thatt he drugs w er e pr oper l yanal y zed. T he D E A chemi s tal s o i dent i fi ed t hes e drugs i n cour tand i ndi cat ed thatt heyw er e appr opr i at el ys eal ed and i n an unt amper ed condi t i on. V i ew i ng t he evi dence i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he G overnm ent , w e w i l l aff i r m R i ver a’ s convi ct i on. N ei t hert es t i m onynorphy s i cal evi dence s ugges t ed anydefi ci enci es i n t he cha i n of cus t odyorhandl i ng of the drug evi dence ; r ather , t her e w as t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he appr opr i at e handl i ng of the phy s i cal evi dence . A ccor di ngl y , a r at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have f ound t he evi dence s uffi ci entt o convi ct R i ver a. W e f in d a m p le r e a so n w h yth e ju ryc o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e d ru g s in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e w e re in d e e d th e sa m e o n e s th a t R iv e ra so ld to th e u n d e rc o v e r a g e n t. W e w ill aff i r m R i ver a’ s convi ct i on.