United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1335

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Nebraska.

*

Alonzo Martinez-Camacho, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 19, 2003

Filed: September 5, 2003

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Alonzo Martinez-Camacho challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

supporting his convictions for (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute methamphetamine and marijuana and (2) possession with intent to

distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1) & 846 (2000).

Having reviewed this challenge de novo and in the light most favorable to the verdict,
1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

-2-

see United States v. Frost, 321 F.3d 738, 740 (8th Cir. 2003), we affirm the judgment

of the District Court.1

To prove the conspiracy charge, the Government was required to prove that a

conspiracy existed with an illegal purpose and that Martinez-Camacho was aware of

it and knowingly joined it. See United States v. Fitz, 317 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir.

2003). The record contains substantial evidence of a conspiracy with the purpose of

selling methamphetamine and marijuana. The evidence demonstrated that MartinezCamacho and two other persons sold the drugs. In particular, Richard Avila testified

that he purchased methamphetamine from Martinez-Camacho, a person named

"Javier," and another man named "Michona." Trial Tr. at 396–401. According to

Avila, these three men—Martinez-Camacho, Michona, and Javier—worked together.

Id. at 402. According to another witness, David Suarez, who purchased

methamphetamine and marijuana from Martinez-Camacho, Martinez-Camacho and

Javier worked together. Id. at 470. Avila also spelled out in detail a

methamphetamine transaction on March 8, 2001, involving himself, MartinezCamacho, and a man named Patrick Powers. On that night, Martinez-Camacho told

Avila that methamphetamine had arrived in town and could be purchased that

evening. Avila then called Powers and asked if he wanted to do "laundry." In the

parking lot outside a Laundromat, Powers grabbed a bag containing

methamphetamine from Martinez-Camacho's car. Id. at 407–09. The next day,

Omaha police found drugs in Powers's car and apartment. Id. at 119–20. Based on

wire taps and visual surveillance, FBI Special Agent Richard Heideman confirmed

this sequence of events, id. at 49–50, and also testified that Martinez-Camacho's car

frequently appeared at Avila's residence. Id. at 25. In addition, a search of MartinezCamacho's residence turned up an address book and another notebook containing a

list of names with numbers corresponding to methamphetamine prices and quantities.
-3-

Id. at 117, 216–19. Taken as a whole, this evidence establishes Martinez-Camacho's

knowledge of the conspiracy as well as his participation in it.

As for the second charge, the Government introduced sufficient evidence to

establish that Martinez-Camacho knowingly possessed methamphetamine and

intended to distribute it. See United States v. Boyd, 180 F.3d 967, 979 (8th Cir.

1999). Although no witness testified to seeing Martinez-Camacho actually possess

methamphetamine, a reasonable jury could have found him to have constructively

possessed it. Constructive possession "is established through proof that the

individual had 'ownership, dominion or control over the contraband itself, or

dominion over the premises in which the contraband is concealed.'" United States v.

Ojeda, 23 F.3d 1473, 1475 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Schubel, 912

F.2d 952, 955 (8th Cir. 1990)). A search of an Omaha apartment at which MartinezCamacho was present uncovered over four hundred grams of methamphetamine

hidden in a vacuum cleaner, a night stand, and a pair of shoes. Trial Tr. at 199–205.

In addition, Special Agent Heideman testified that Martinez-Camacho made frequent

brief visits to this apartment, located fifty-nine blocks from his home. Id. at 32–38.

Based on these facts, a reasonable jury could infer that the apartment visits involved

his possession of methamphetamine. Evidence of Martinez-Camacho's knowledge

of methamphetamine was provided by the testimony of Officer Greg Gonzales

concerning a prior attempt by Martinez-Camacho to purchase methamphetamine. See

id. at 491; United States v. Jackson, 278 F.3d 769, 771 (8th Cir. 2002). Finally, the

jury could have reasonably concluded that Martinez-Camacho's intent was to sell the

drugs because the amount of methamphetamine found—over four hundred grams

(nearly one pound)—is inconsistent with personal use. See United States v. Hall, 171

F.3d 1133, 1148–49 (8th Cir. 1999) (considering testimony that three and a half

grams of methamphetamine was a reasonable amount for personal use and

determining that the defendants' possession of a half-pound of the drug was evidence

of their intent to distribute), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1027 (2000).
-4-

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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