United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2835

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Ricardo Limon-Urenda

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Sioux City

____________

 Submitted: May 15, 2015

 Filed: July 22, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Ricardo Limon-Urenda was convicted of conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine in the Northern District ofIowa. On appeal, Limon-Urenda argues
that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because 1

there wasinsufficient evidence to support venue in the Northern District of Iowa. We

affirm.

I. Background

Limon-Urenda was charged in a one-count indictment with conspiracy to

distribute 500 grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture containing 50 grams or

more of pure methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A),

and 846, in the Northern District of Iowa "[f]rom about 2013 through June 2013."

The government produced the following evidence at trial. On June 20, 2013,

Agent Ben Gill of the Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement arranged the purchase

of two ounces of methamphetamine from Jovany Bautista using a confidential

informant in Sioux City, Iowa. Agent Gill expected the methamphetamine transaction

to occur at a Conoco gas station just across the river in South Sioux City, Nebraska.

Prior to the actual drug transaction, other agents conducted surveillance of

Bautista at his residence in South Sioux City, Nebraska. Agents observed Bautista

associate with Limon-Urenda and Javier Castilla-Gallardo. At the time of the

scheduled drug transaction, agents observed Bautista, Limon-Urenda, and

Castilla-Gallardo drive from Bautista's residence to the Conoco gas station. Agents

stopped the vehicle occupied by the three men. Following a search, they seized

approximately two ounces of crystal methamphetamine found inside a white work

glove. Agents subsequently seizedmatching white work gloves fromLimon-Urenda's

vehicle located at Bautista'sresidence. Agents additionally seized methamphetamine

from Limon-Urenda's residence. 

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the

1

Northern District of Iowa. 

-2-
Bautista testified that he distributed methamphetamine to and purchased

methamphetamine from Limon-Urenda from 2012 through June 2013. Bautista

estimated that he distributed one to two pounds of methamphetamine to LimonUrenda and that Limon-Urenda distributed one to two pounds of methamphetamine

to Bautista. According to Bautista, Limon-Urenda accompanied him in 2012 and

2013 on a number of trips from South Sioux City, Nebraska, to Sioux City, Iowa,

during which they delivered methamphetamine to customers.

Bautista further described his and Castilla-Gallardo's involvement in the

procurement oftwo ounces ofmethamphetamine fromLimon-Urenda for the delivery

of methamphetamine on June 20, 2013. The prospective customer contacted Bautista

by phone seeking to acquire two ounces of methamphetamine. Bautista then asked

Castilla-Gallardo to contact Limon-Urenda to see if he could supply the two ounces

of methamphetamine. Bautista and the prospective customer arranged to meet at the

Conoco gas station for delivery of the methamphetamine in South Sioux City,

Nebraska, just across the bridge from Sioux City, Iowa. Bautista knew that the

prospective customer was coming from Sioux City, Iowa, across the river to get the

methamphetamine in South Sioux City, Nebraska. Through Castilla-Gallardo,

Bautista arranged for Limon-Urenda to provide the two ounces of methamphetamine

for this transaction. Bautista, Castilla-Gallardo, and Limon-Urenda all met at

Bautista's residence in South Sioux City, Nebraska, and used methamphetamine.

Limon-Urenda supplied the methamphetamine for the prearranged transaction. Then,

Bautista, Castilla-Gallardo, and Limon-Urenda traveled in Bautista's vehicle to

distribute the two ounces ofmethamphetamine to the prospective customer. When the

men arrived at the Conoco gas station, agents arrested all of them and seized the

methamphetamine.

Castilla-Gallardo testified that he had seen Limon-Urenda and Bautista supply

each other with methamphetamine in the several months preceding their arrests.

According to Castilla-Gallardo, he initially purchased half grams of

-3-
methamphetamine for personal use from Limon-Urenda in late 2012 and early 2013.

Then, closer to June 2013, Castilla-Gallardo started purchasing larger quantities of

methamphetamine for resale to support his habit; he estimated purchasing

approximately three or four eight-balls of methamphetamine from Limon-Urenda 2

during this time. 

Castilla-Gallardo additionally testified that, after Christmas 2012, he

accompanied Limon-Urenda on at least two trips from South Sioux City, Nebraska,

to Sioux City, Iowa, during which Limon-Urenda delivered methamphetamine to a

customer.

Castilla-Gallardo also confirmed his assistance in the procurement of two

ounces of methamphetamine from Limon-Urenda, at Bautista's request, for the

delivery of the methamphetamine on June 20, 2013. Castilla-Gallardo contacted

Limon-Urenda and helped arrange Limon-Urenda's delivery of two ounces of

methamphetamine to Bautista for purposes of the prearranged transaction.

Castilla-Gallardo also confirmed his, Bautista's, and Limon-Urenda's use of

methamphetamine at Bautista’s residence before the prearranged drug transaction.

Castilla-Gallardo confirmed that all three rode in the vehicle in the attempt to deliver

the methamphetamine at the Conoco gas station in South Sioux City, Nebraska. 

During a post-Miranda interview, Limon-Urenda admitted knowing that about

one and one-half ounces of crystal methamphetamine was found in the vehicle when

he, Bautista, and Castilla-Gallardo were arrested on June 20, 2013. Limon-Urenda

also admitted that earlier that day he had heard Bautista talking on the phone with

someone about "one and one-half ounces." He further admitted that he had

"An 'eight-ball' refersto one-eighth of an ounce, or approximately 3.5 grams." 2

United States v. Slagg, 651 F.3d 832, 841 n.3 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting United States

v. Garcia, 562 F.3d 947, 950 n.2 (8th Cir. 2009)). 

-4-
accompanied Bautista on three or four occasions when Bautista delivered

methamphetamine fromSouth Sioux City, Nebraska, to customers at a motel in Sioux

City, Iowa. 

On March 6, 2014, the jury returned a verdict in which it found Limon-Urenda

guilty of the charged offense. Limon-Urenda moved for a judgment of acquittal

pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c). Limon-Urenda argued for a

judgment of acquittal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence introduced

at trial to support his conviction on the charged offense. First, he argued that "there

was a lack of sufficient evidence in which to prove that any part of this alleged

conspiracy took place in the State of Iowa." Second, he argued that "regardless of

credibility issues, there was an overall lack of evidence presented by the Government

to prove each of the elements of the offense charged." The district court denied

Limon-Urenda's motion. 

II. Discussion

On appeal, Limon-Urenda "argues that there was insufficient evidence that he

committed [conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine] in the Northern District of

Iowa. Specifically, [he] contends that . . . the government presented no evidence that

[the offense was] in the Northern District of Iowa." United States v. Johnson, 462

F.3d 815, 819 (8th Cir. 2006). 

"Proper venue is required by Article III, § 2 of the United States

Constitution and by the Sixth Amendment, as well as Rule 18 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." United States v. Morales, 445

F.3d 1081, 1084 (8th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). A federal crime

may be prosecuted in any district in which such offense began,

continued, or was completed. [United States v.] Hull, 419 F.3d [762,]

768 [(8 Cir. 2005)]. Specifically, "[i]n a conspiracy case, venue is th

proper 'in any district in which any act in furtherance of the conspiracy

was committed by any of the conspirators even though some of them

were never physically present there.'" Id. (quoting United States v.

-5-
Fahnbulleh, 748 F.2d 473, 477 (8th Cir. 1984)). "Where the relevant

facts are disputed, venue is a question of fact for the jury to decide."

United States v. Nguyen, 608 F.3d 368, 374 (8th Cir. 2010).

United States v. Banks, 706 F.3d 901, 904–05 (8th Cir. 2013) (fourth alteration in

original).

"'Furthermore, although separate proof of an overt act is not a necessary

element of a drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, venue is proper in a conspiracy

case in any jurisdiction in which an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was

committed by any of the conspirators.'" Morales, 445 F.3d at 1084 (quoting United

States v. Romero, 150 F.3d 821, 824 (8th Cir. 1998)). "'The government bears the

burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence.'" Johnson, 462 F.3d at

819 (quoting United States v. Bascope–Zurita, 68 F.3d 1057, 1062 (8th Cir. 1995)).

Based on the following evidence, a jury could reasonably infer that LimonUrenda and his two coconspirators engaged in overt acts in furtherance of their

conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in Sioux City, Iowa, making venue proper

in the Northern District of Iowa. See Morales, 445 F.3d at 1084. First, Bautista

testified to traveling with Limon-Urenda on several occasionsin 2012 and 2013 from

South Sioux City, Nebraska, to Sioux City, Iowa, to deliver methamphetamine to

customers. Second, Castilla-Gallardo testified to accompanying Limon-Urenda from

South Sioux City, Nebraska, to Sioux City, Iowa, after Christmas 2012 and into 2013,

when Limon-Urenda delivered methamphetamine to customers. Third, Limon3

Limon-Urenda argues thatCastilla-Gallardo testified at trial inconsistent with

3

his deposition, and, therefore, conflicting testimony exists about whether LimonUrenda traveled to Iowa for drug deals. But Castilla-Gallardo's credibility was a

determination for the jury to make. United States v. Jefferson, 652 F.3d 927, 930 (8th

Cir. 2011) (stating that witness testimony need not be corroborated and that a jury's

credibility determinations are "'virtually unreviewable on appeal'" (quotation

omitted)). 

-6-
Urenda admitted in a post-Miranda statement to law enforcement that he had

accompanied Bautista on three or four occasions to deliver methamphetamine to

customersin Sioux City, Iowa. Fourth, on June 20, 2013, Limon-Urenda supplied two

ounces of methamphetamine to Bautista for the purpose of their delivery of the

methamphetamine to a prospective customer coming fromSioux City, Iowa, to South

Sioux City, Nebraska.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

______________________________

-7-