* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. ERNEST CHRZASZCZ, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-10102 D.C. No. CR 09-1381-PHX-JAT
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona James T. Teilborg, Senior District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 6, 2013 ** Pasadena, California Before: TROTT, LUCERO, *** and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges. Ernest Chrzaszcz appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 

# FILED
JUN 17 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A), and his convi ctions for possession with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, and marijuana, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(A). Exercising jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. Chrzaszcz argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict. We review claims of insuffi cient evidence de novo. United States v. Duran , 189 F.3d 1071, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999). The dispositive question is whether, construing the evidence “in the light mo st favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). “To establish a drug conspiracy, the government must pr ove: 1) an agreement to accomplish an illegal objective; and 2) the intent to commit the underlying offense.” United States v. Iriarte-Ortega , 113 F.3d 1022, 1024 (9th Cir. 1997), amended by 127 F.3d 1200 (9th Cir. 1997). To prove possession with intent to distribute, the government must show that “the defendant (1) knowingly (2) possessed the [drug] (3) with intent to distribute it.” United States v. Mora , 876 F.2d 76, 77 (9th Cir. 1989).Chrzaszcz was apprehended as the pa ssenger of a truck carrying large amounts of heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. He asserts that the only evidence that he was aware of the truck’s cargo was a co conspirator’s “bare assertion that ‘he3 knew.’” We reject Chrzaszcz’s charact erization of the evidence. Two coconspirators confirmed that Chrzaszcz kne w of the drugs in the truck. One of these coconspirators testified that he personally discussed drug trafficking plans with Chrzaszcz. The government also in troduced a recorded phone conversation in which Chrzaszcz discussed cocaine prices with a coconspirator and testimony from law enforcement officers who observed Chrzaszcz taking delivery of marijuana several days prior to his arrest, among other evidence. Viewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that the jury c ould have rationally concluded that the government proved each of the essential el ements of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. See Jackson , 443 U.S. at 319. AFFIRMED
.