Source: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2004/04/03-8003.htm
Timestamp: 2020-02-24 08:08:40
Document Index: 320276220

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2', '§ 1291', '§ 24', '§ 846']

03-8003 -- U.S. v. Delgado-Uribe -- 04/13/2004
| Keyword | Case | Docket | Date: Filed / Added | (47946 bytes) (36039 bytes)
v. No. 03-8003
SALVADOR DELGADO-URIBE, also known as Chava,
(D.C. No. 02-CR-0072-02-J)
L. Robert Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, (Matthew H. Mead, United States Attorney, with him on the briefs),Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
James H. Barrett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Defendant-Appellant.
A jury convicted Defendant Salvador Delgado-Uribe (Delgado) and his co-defendant, Jennifer Myrick, of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 846, and
(2) possession with intent to distribute marijuana and aiding and abetting in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. § 2.(1) At the close of the Government's case-in-chief, Delgado moved for judgment of acquittal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. The district court denied Delgado's motion, and later sentenced him to fifty-seven months imprisonment. On appeal, Delgado argues the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the Government's evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
Myrick waived her Miranda rights. Upon questioning, Myrick denied any knowledge that marijuana was in the van. Myrick claimed she did not smell the marijuana because she had a cold and her nose was plugged. Myrick informed law enforcement officers that while she was in California, she was contacted by a "Felipe Rodriguez" from Chicago. Myrick stated Rodriguez was a friend whom she suspected of drug involvement. Myrick claimed Rodriguez offered to pay her if she would drive his brother to Chicago. Law enforcement officers later determined that Felipe Rodriguez, also known as Miguel Delgado-Uribe, is Defendant's brother.(2) Delgado was interviewed but did not make any statements or admissions. Delgado and Myrick were indicted on drug charges.
Delgado moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's case-in-chief. The district court denied the motion, finding the Government presented sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). At the close of all the evidence, Delgado renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal. The district court again denied the motion. Delgado argues the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the Government failed to introduce sufficient evidence in its case-in-chief to support his conviction.
We review the record de novo when reviewing both the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction and the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal. United States v. Vallo, 238 F.3d 1242, 1246-47 (10th Cir. 2001). We must determine whether "viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. (internal citation omitted). In conducting our inquiry, we do not weigh conflicting evidence nor consider the credibility of witnesses. United States v. McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1289-90 (10th Cir. 2000). Instead, we must simply determine "whether [the] evidence, if believed, would establish each element of the crime." Vallo, 238 F.3d at 1247.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a), a defendant may move for judgment of acquittal at the end of the Government's case-in-chief.(3)
Generally, if the defendant's motion is denied, he has two options: (1) he may rest his case, or (2) he may proceed and present his case. See Wayne R. LaFave, Jerold H. Israel, and Nancy J. King, Criminal Procedure § 24.6(b) (2d ed. 1999). If a defendant chooses to rest his case, our review of the record is necessarily limited to evidence produced during the Government's case-in-chief alone. See Vallo, 238 F.3d at 1248. If a defendant chooses to present additional evidence, however, the "defendant waives the right to have the sufficiency of the evidence tested by the government's case alone" and we review the entire record on appeal. United States v. Bowie, 892 F.2d 1494, 1496 (10th Cir. 1990) (emphasis added); United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d 838, 844 n.3 (10th Cir. 1999); Vallo, 238 F.3d at 1248.(4)
In Vallo, 238 F.3d at 1248, we expressed concern, but did not resolve, whether the 1994 amendments to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 had any affect on our "waiver rule." In 1994, Rule 29(b) was amended to state "[i]f the court reserves decision [on a motion for judgment of acquittal], it must decide the motion on the basis of the evidence at the time the ruling was reserved." Vallo, 238 F.3d at 1248.(5) Notably, the 1994 amendments in question were limited to Rule 29(b), which only apply if a district court reserves ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal. The amendments did not affect Rule 29(a), which apply if the district court rules on a motion for judgment of acquittal before a case is submitted to the jury. Accordingly, our waiver rule continues to apply to motions for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29(a). If a district court denies a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the Government's case-in-chief and a defendant proceeds with his case, we review the entire record on appeal. See Vallo, 238 F.3d at 1248; Lazcano-Villalobos, 175 F.3d at 844 n.3.(6)
In this case, Delgado filed a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's case-in-chief. The district court denied Delgado's motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). Delgado subsequently presented his case-in-chief. Accordingly, Delgado waived his right to limit our review to the Government's case-in-chief alone and we consider the entire record on appeal.
The elements of conspiracy are well-settled. See United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 1999). Under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an agreement with another person to violate the law, (2) knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy, (3) knowing and voluntary involvement, and (4) interdependence among the alleged conspirators. Dozal, 173 F.3d at 797. A jury may infer guilt "from the surrounding circumstances and presume that a defendant acting in furtherance of a conspiracy is a knowing participant therein." Id. An agreement may be inferred from circumstantial evidence that indicates concerted action. See United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 865 (10th Cir. 1995). To be reasonable, however, the inference of an agreement must be more than mere speculation or conjecture. See id.
Factors the jury, or a court reviewing a jury's verdict, may consider in drawing the inference of a conspiracy include, but are not limited to: (1) a defendant's presence at the crime scene; (2) a defendant's association with co-conspirators; (3) evidence of conflicting stories; (4) active attempts to divert officers' attention from a stopped vehicle; (5) participation in drug transactions; or (6) knowledge of and control over drugs. See id. at 868. Any single factor, standing alone, may be insufficient to support an inference of a conspiracy. See United States v. Riggins, 15 F.3d 992, 994 (10th Cir. 1994). A direct correlation exists, however, between the number of circumstantial facts and the existence of a conspiracy. See Jones, 44 F.3d at 868.
In this case, the Government introduced sufficient evidence showing Delgado "possessed"- either actually or constructively - the marijuana found in the van. The evidence showed Delgado knew about the marijuana, had access to the marijuana, and attempted to mask the smell of the marijuana. Sufficient evidence was also presented showing Delgado aided and abetted the criminal venture. Delgado knew, at least by Utah, a crime was being committed. Delgado willfully intended to further the criminal venture by driving the van, paying for gas, spraying air freshener to mask the smell of the marijuana, and misrepresenting the purpose of his trip to law enforcement officers. Based on the foregoing, the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Delgado guilty of possession with the intent to distribute marijuana and for aiding and abetting a criminal venture.
1. Decided and filed together with the companion case of United States v. Myrick, No. 03-8007, ____WL ____ (10th Cir. 2004) (unpublished disposition).
2. Because Myrick knew the individual as "Rodriguez," he is referred to by that name throughout this opinion.
3. Rule 29(a) provides:
4. LaFave explains:
5. Rule 29(b) provides:
6. In United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir. 2000), the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's case-in-chief and the district court denied the motion. The defendant then presented his case. Notwithstanding our waiver rule, we stated "[w]hen reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the government's case-in-chief, we look only to evidence entered into the record at the time of the motion, that is, when the government rested." We are not bound by Wood because the statement conflicts with earlier, settled, Circuit precedent. See Jennings v. Natrona County Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 780 n.3 (10th Cir. 1999) ("when faced with an intra-circuit conflict, a panel should follow earlier, settled precedent over a subsequent deviation therefrom") (internal citation omitted); see also Vallo, 238 F.3d at 1248 (when a defendant testifies in her own defense, "we consider the entire record when determining the sufficiency of the evidence"); United States v. Cox, 929 F.2d 1511, 1513 (10th Cir. 1991) ("the defendant's right to a sufficiency of the evidence review based solely on the government's case is nevertheless waived once the defendant presents evidence"); Bowie, 892 F.2d at 1496 (same).
URL: http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2004/04/03-8003.htm.