### The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-1006

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Jose Maria Saenz, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 10, 1996 Filed: September 9, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, LAY, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Jose Mari a Saenz was convicted by a jury of one count of conspiring to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994) and on e count of aiding and abetting the possession of marijuana with an intent to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court sentenced Saenz to t wo concurrent terms of sixty months in 1 prison and five years of supervised release. The court also imposed a special assessment of $100. Saenz appeals from his convictions, and w e affirm.

The sole argument Saenz raises on appeal is that the governmen t failed to introduce s ufficient evidence to convict him. "We will reverse
a conviction for insufficient evidence . . . only if no construction of th e evidence exists to support the jury's

### -2-

verdict." United States v. Darden , 70 F.3d 1507, 1517 (8th Cir. 1995) , cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 1449, 2567 (1996). We view "the evidence in the light m ost favorable to the guilty verdict, giving the government th e benef it of all reasonable inferences that might be drawn from th e evidence." Id. (quoted cases omitted).
In the summer of 1994, Gerald Mixon arranged for substantial amounts of marij uana to be delivered to Chris Hamilton. Hamilton and hi s associates then transported the marijuana to Minnesota for Mixon. Hamilto n
was arre sted in October 1994, and he agreed to cooperate with th e government. At the t ime, Hamilton was arranging to buy a large amount of
mar ijuana from Mixon. Based on information obtained from Hamilton, la w enforcement officers learned that Nevlyn Prothro, an associate of Mixon,
was planning to drive a motor home to Texas to obtain a half ton o f marijuana. Documents later seized from Mixon and Saenz showed that in mid

October Mixon and Sae nz were in McAllen, Texas, on the border between the Uni ted States and Mexico, and that Saenz had wired money to Mexico o n October 12 and October 19. Apparently, the marijuana was not available, and Prothro and Mixondrove the motor home to Chicago. Prothro, who pled guilty to conspiring to distribute marijuana and possess marijuana wit h intent to distribute, cooperated with the government and testified tha t Saenz flew ahead to Chicago where he was to show a potential customer some cocaine

. That customer's name was Nick Wrigley, and Saenz's calenda r indicates that he had a meeting with "Nick" on October 25 in Chicago. Whe n Mixon and Prothro arrived in Chicago, they met with Saenz and discussed th e meeting with Wrigley. One of Mixon's associates apparently had delivered marijua na to Saenz rather than cocaine. Prothro testified that Saen z reported t hat he had shown Wrigley the marijuana, but Wrigley was no t inte rested. While in Chicago, Saenz also drove with Prothro when h e delivered a ten-pound sample of marijuana to a customer.

### -3- Law e nforcement officers in Minnesota arranged an undercove r marijuan a buy in November 1994. In connection with the undercove r operation, Saenz was confronted by officers in a hotel lobby while he was trying to check out of the hotel. He had told the clerk that he wa s che cking out of room 218. A search of room 218 yielded a great deal o f evidence, including a digital pager, Saenz's add ress book, Saenz's airline itineraryfor his October 25 flight to Chicago, a receipt for a renta l truck, and the key to a lock that secured the rear door on a rental truck that was in the parking lot of the hotel. Pursu ant to a warrant, officers searched the rental t ruck and seized 242 pounds of marijuana. In the cab of t he rental truck, officers found an unopened package of tape wit h Saenz's fingerprints on it.

The ev idence set out above is just a taste of the evidence agains t Saenz tha t the government presented at his trial. We find there i s substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that Saen z conspire d with Gerald Mixon and others to distribute marijuana. A reasonable jury also could find that he aided and abetted the possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute.
Despi te the overwhelming evidence of Saenz's participation in th e conspiracy, Saenz claims that he was merely "the driver and general `erran d boy' for Mixon." Appellant's Brief at 16. Saenz also claims that while the government established Saenz's presence at the scene of the crime it failed to establish any knowledge or participation on his part. Id. at 20

. The jur y, however, did not accept these arguments and returned guilt y verdicts against Saen z. There was substantial evidence, including direct testimony, that estab lished Saenz's knowledge of the marijuana possession and di stribution activities engaged in by his co-conspirators. Th e evidence also is sufficient to show that Saenz k new that his actions aided the ill egal activities of his co-conspirators. Based on the evidenc e presented at trial, we cannot say that "no

### -4-

construction of the evidence exists to support the jury's verdict," Darden , 70 F.3d at 1517. The convictions are therefore affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.