Opinion ID: 2747298
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: “We review de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.” United States v. Yannotti, 541 F.3d 112, 120 (2d Cir. 2008). “A defendant challenging his conviction on sufficiency grounds faces a ‘heavy burden.’” United States v. Bala, 236 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Matthews, 20 F.3d 538, 548 (2d Cir. 1994)). This is because the court must “review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, drawing all reasonable inferences in its favor.” United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 459 (2d Cir. 2004). We reverse “only if no rational factfinder could have found the crimes charged proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 459–60; see generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). Upon review of the record and relevant law, we conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the convictions of Reyes and Daniels. At trial, six witnesses, including coconspirators, drug suppliers, and drug buyers, testified to the existence of a vast narcotics distribution conspiracy operated and led by Reyes and Daniels. Furthermore, evidence from DEA agents, chemists, and cooperating witnesses supported the jury’s finding that Reyes and Daniels knew, or reasonably foresaw, that the conspiracy, which spanned hundreds of transactions over several months, involved at least one kilogram of heroin and 280 grams of cocaine base. See United States v. Pressley, 469 F.3d 63, 65 (2d Cir. 2006) (“Within the context of a conspiracy to distribute large amounts of narcotics, these subsidiary crimes may take the form of a series of smaller drug sales.”). Accordingly, in viewing the evidence “in its totality and in the light most favorable to the government,” a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the charged conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Mandell, 752 F.3d 544, 549 (2d Cir. 2014).