Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Alberto RABAGO-FELIX, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-20
Citations: 444 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 10-50451
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Alberto RABAGO-FELIX, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon Alberto RABAGO-FELIX, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-50451.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 20, 2011.
Adam Lome Braverman, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Stewart Michael Young, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
Anthony E. Colombo, Jr., Esquire, Law Offices of Anthony E. Colombo, Jr., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ramon Alberto Rabago-Felix appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 120-month sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Rabago-Felix contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the evidence does not reflect that he knowingly possessed cocaine. After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the record reflects that "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Diaz-Cardenas, 351 F.3d 404, 407 (9th Cir.2003) (also noting that a jury can infer knowledge when an individual is the driver and sole occupant of a vehicle, or in possession of a large quantity of drugs).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.