Opinion ID: 2791468
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Mr. Velarde challenges the sufficiency of evidence. But, based on the trial evidence, the jury could reasonably have found Mr. Velarde guilty of conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. Thus, we reject this challenge.
In deciding whether the district court should have granted the motion for judgment of acquittal, we engage in de novo review. United States v. Ailsworth, 138 F.3d 843, 846 (10th Cir. 1998). For this review, we ask: Could a reasonable jury have found Mr. Velarde guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for this crime? See United States v. Jones, 768 F.3d 1096, 1101 (10th Cir. 2014). To prove guilt, the prosecution bore the burden of proving that Mr. Velarde  had agreed with another person to violate methamphetamine trafficking laws, 8  had acquired knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy,  had knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy, and  had acted in a manner interdependent with co-conspirators. United States v. Dozal, 173 F.3d 787, 797 (10th Cir. 1999).
Based on the evidence, the jury could reasonably have found Mr. Velarde guilty of the conspiracy. Ms. Amy Conway and Mr. Ory Johnson testified that they had frequently bought methamphetamine from Mr. Velarde for resale to others. Ms. Conway added that after she had introduced Mr. Johnson to Mr. Velarde, the two men “cut [her] out of the [methamphetamine] deal.” Appellant’s App., vol. 3, at 257-58. From this testimony, the jury could rationally have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Velarde was guilty of conspiracy. 2 2 The government also presented evidence involving (1) the number of calls between Mr. Velarde and his codefendants, and (2) a codefendant’s placement of Mr. Velarde’s address in a GPS system. Mr. Velarde argues that this evidence does not support guilt. We need not address this argument because the testimony of Ms. Conway and Mr. Johnson provides sufficient support for the finding of guilt. 9
On appeal, Mr. Velarde argues that the witnesses were not credible. This argument lacks merit, for assessment of credibility is for the jury, not our court. United States v. Irvin, 682 F.3d 1254, 1266 (10th Cir. 2012).
Mr. Velarde also challenges the sufficiency of evidence for the distribution of 500 or more grams of methamphetamine. We reject this challenge. Mr. Johnson testified that except for one week, he had bought one to two ounces of methamphetamine from Mr. Velarde on a weekly basis from late June or early July until the first week of December. Even if we were to assume that Mr. Johnson waited until early July to start buying methamphetamine from Mr. Velarde, the purchases would have lasted at least 19 weeks. One ounce equals 28.3495 grams. Thus, the jury could infer that Mr. Velarde sold Mr. Johnson between 28.3495 and 56.699 grams of methamphetamine on 19 occasions. The total would have involved between 538.6 and 1077.3 grams. As a result, the jury could reasonably find that Mr. Velarde had conspired to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. 10