Opinion ID: 585686
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The nature of the government's inducement.

Text: 21 The government contends that Lozoya was induced by money. Lozoya hoped to receive $500 dollars profit for each kilogram of cocaine sold. 22 In United States v. Esquer-Gamez, Enrique, the defendant, argued that he only cooperated after repeated inducements, approximately twenty in number. However, the government produced evidence that the only inducement offered by the informant and the other agents was money. 550 F.2d at 1234. When the nature of the inducement is simply money, predisposition to commit the crime may be inferred. United States v. Citro, 842 F.2d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 866 (1988); accord United States v. Sotelo-Murillo, 887 F.2d 176, 181 (9th Cir.1989). 23 After review of all the factors Lozoya was shown to be predisposed to violate 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). He possessed knowledge about the quality of the cocaine, which was demonstrated by his ability to taste for the purity of the cocaine. He agreed to a cocaine purchase for profit. Finally, he was part of a group of conspirators who combined to generate $385,000 dollars to purchase 25 kilograms of cocaine illegally. 24 Based upon this evidence, the government met its burden of introducing sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Lozoya was not entrapped as a matter of law. See Hsieh Hui Mei Chin, 754 F.2d at 821-22. Lozoya's motions for acquittal based upon entrapment were properly denied. 25