Opinion ID: 2803111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ramos's Sufficiency Argument

Text: Ramos moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts based on the insufficiency of the evidence against him at the close -33- of the government's case, and he renewed that motion post-trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). We review a district court's denial of a Rule 29 motion de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and giving equal weight to direct and circumstantial evidence. See United States v. Appolon, 695 F.3d 44, 55 (1st Cir. 2012). The verdict must stand unless the evidence is so scant that a rational factfinder could not conclude that the government proved all the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (quoting United States v. Rodríguez-Vélez, 597 F.3d 32, 39 (1st Cir. 2010)). On appeal, Ramos argues only that the trial evidence was insufficient to prove the charges that he aided and abetted the possession with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine, crackcocaine, and marijuana. When the government alleges that a defendant aided and abetted an illegal act, it must show that the defendant participated in the venture and sought by [his] actions to make it succeed, United States v. Bristol-Martir, 570 F.3d 29, 39 (1st Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that he willingly took some action to facilitate the crime, United States v. Bennett, 75 F.3d 40, 45 (1st Cir. 1996). Where the charges arise from a principal's possession with intent to distribute narcotics, [k]nowledge of the particular controlled substance being . . . distributed is not necessary, and intent to distribute can be inferred from the -34- quantity of drugs involved. Bristol-Martir, 570 F.3d at 39 (internal quotation marks omitted). As we have explained, the prosecution's case was vulnerably perched on the testimony of cooperating witnesses without the support of any independent corroboration. That weakness, though, does not render the evidence insufficient. Indeed, we have repeatedly held that even the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating accomplice may sustain a conviction so long as that testimony is not facially incredible. United States v. Cortés-Cabán, 691 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 2012) (collecting cases). Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, as we must in analyzing an attack against the sufficiency of the evidence, see Bayes, 210 F.3d at 65—66, we conclude that a rational jury could have found Ramos guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on the aiding and abetting counts. Delgado, Xiomara, and Andy's trial testimony showed that, as the leader of the conspiracy, Ramos established the organization's primacy for all four types of drugs at Victor Berríos by purchasing control of the drug point from the Nazario brothers. He also made hiring decisions (such as his choice to retain Delgado as an administrator and seller at Victor Berríos and Andy as a runner at various drug points, including Victor Berríos), armed his employees (such as when he provided Delgado with a gun), and constructed a chain of command (by tapping Omar, José Manuel Zavala-Martí, and Bam Bam as -35- order sergeants who dole[d] out punishment to those who failed at something). Such high-level activities were no less helpful and intentional in furthering the organization's illegal objectives than the actions taken by the sellers and runners themselves. Ramos's sufficiency of the evidence argument therefore fails.