Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Nava RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-14
Citations: 111 F. App'x 505
Docket Number: No. 03-10594
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Nava RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 505–506

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Miguel Nava RIVAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-10594.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 8, 2004.
Decided Oct. 14, 2004.
Anne E. Mosher, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Francisco Leon, Esq., Law Office of Francisco Leon, Tucson, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: TROTT, MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and SHADUR, Senior District Judge.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Nava Rivas seeks reversal of his conviction of three counts: (1) conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B), and 846; (2) possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and aiding others to do the same, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(l)(B)(vii), and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and (3) conspiracy to import marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), 960(a)(1), 960(b)(2), and 963.
Rivas asserts there was insufficient evidence to sustain any of these three counts. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found each element of each crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Bishop, 959 F.2d 820, 829 (9th Cir.1992). Rivas also challenges the admission of testimony by the government's expert witness. The district court did not abuse its discretion, let alone commit plain error, United States v. Alatorre, 222 F.3d 1098, 1100 (9th Cir.2000), by admitting the expert witness testimony.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.