United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2967

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Sabas Rodriguez-Cisneros, also known as Sabas Cisneros, also known as Sabas

Cisneros Rodriguez, also known as Sabras R. Cisneros Rodriguez, also known as

Sabas Cisneros-Rodriguez, also known as Sabas Rodriguez Cisneros, also known

as Jorge Rodriguez Cisneros, also known as Jorge Rodriguez-Cisneros, also known

as Jorge Medrano, also known as Sabas C. Rodriguez, also known as Jorge

Rodriguez, also known as Delfino Rodriguez Cisneros, also known as Delfino

Rodriguez-Cisneros, also known as Delfino Rodriguez, also known as Delfino

Cisneros, also known as Ernan Bustos, also known as Antonio Rodriguez, also

known as Jose Cruz Cisneros, Jr., also known as Jose Cruz Rodriguez Cisneros,

also known as Jose Cruz Rodriguez-Cisneros, also known as Sabas Rodriguez, also

known as Jorge Cisneros,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

 ____________

 Submitted: May 15, 2020

Filed: August 3, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________
Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Sabas Rodriguez-Cisneros of conspiring to distribute or

possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine and 500

grams or more of methamphetamine mixture. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A), and 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 250 months’

imprisonment. On appeal, Rodriguez-Cisneros challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence to support the verdict, and argues that the court imposed an unreasonable

sentence. We affirm.

A principal witness at trial was a former girlfriend of Rodriguez-Cisneros who

reached a plea agreement with the government. She was arrested in March 2018 for

possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl.

The girlfriend testified about buying methamphetamine from RodriguezCisneros for approximately one year and paying him back with proceeds of her own

sales. She described serving as a “middleman” in various drug transactions and money

transfers orchestrated by Rodriguez-Cisneros. She also explained how she received a

series of packages from Mexico that contained drugs for Rodriguez-Cisneros in spring

2018. The government presented text messages between the girlfriend and RodriguezCisneros in which they discussed exchanging drugs and splitting the proceeds of sales. 

The jury also heard recorded telephone calls made from jail after the girlfriend’s arrest

in which the two discussed the charges and evidence against her.

1The Honorable John M. Gerrard, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Nebraska.

-2-
Two of the girlfriend’s customers also testified after reaching plea agreements

with the government. The first testified that he bought methamphetamine several times

from the girlfriend and recounted one instance when he bought a half-pound directly

from Rodriguez-Cisneros. The other witness described purchasing methamphetamine

from the girlfriend, including on one occasion when she took money from the buyer

and returned with drugs from a car occupied by Rodriguez-Cisneros. The jury found

Rodriguez-Cisneros guilty of the charged conspiracy.

At sentencing, the district court calculated an advisory guideline range of 262

to 327 months’ imprisonment. Rodriguez-Cisneros moved for a downward variance

from the range, citing the lower sentences of his co-conspirators and arguing that a

sentence exceeding 20 years overstated the seriousness of the offense. The district

court varied downward and imposed a 250-month sentence.

Rodriguez-Cisneros argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to

convict him of conspiracy. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the

verdict and consider whether a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty

beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. El Herman, 583 F.3d 576, 579 (8th Cir.

2009); Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

Rodriguez-Cisneros challenges the credibility of the witnesses based on their

desire to earn reduced sentences by cooperating with the government. But it is the

jury’s responsibility to evaluate witness credibility, and its determinations are “virtually

unreviewable on appeal.” United States v. Alexander, 714 F.3d 1085, 1090 (8th Cir.

2013) (internal quotation omitted). We have “repeatedly upheld jury verdicts based

solely on the testimony of conspirators and cooperating witnesses.” United States v.

Mayfield, 909 F.3d 956, 963 (8th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation omitted).

The witnesses here corroborated one another, and their testimony was bolstered

by text messages, jailhouse telephone recordings, and delivery records for drugs

-3-
received by the girlfriend. Rodriguez-Cisneros cross-examined the witnesses about

their plea agreements, and juries are capable of weighing testimony in light of

cooperation agreements with the government. United States v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d

943, 946 (8th Cir. 2019). The evidence produced at trial was more than sufficient to

support a reasonable finding of guilt.

Rodriguez-Cisneros also contends that the court imposed an unreasonable

sentence. We review the reasonableness of the sentence under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007).

Rodriguez-Cisneros suggests that the district court improperly penalized him for

proceeding to trial, but this contention is not supported by the record. The court did

comment that Rodriguez-Cisneros ignored his lawyer’s advice to plead guilty, but

permissibly did so in the context of discussing the defendant’s unwillingness to accept

responsibility for his criminal conduct and the consequences of that choice. The court

is permitted to consider a defendant’s failure to accept responsibility as part of the

“history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1); see United

States v. Jimenez-Gutierrez, 491 F.3d 923, 927 (8th Cir. 2007).

In the end, the court imposed a sentence below the advisory range of 262 to 327

months in prison. “Where, as here, a district court varies below a properly calculated

guidelines sentence, it is nearly inconceivable that the court abused its discretion in not

varying downward still further.” United States v. Farah, 899 F.3d 608, 616 (8th Cir.

2018) (internal quotation omitted). The record demonstrates that the district court

adequately considered the § 3553(a) factors before imposing the 250-month sentence,

and we discern no abuse of discretion.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-4-