Opinion ID: 18273
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: agreement with anyone else.

Text: Ramos, Moreno, and Rodriguez claim insufficient evidence to convict. If a rational jury could have found them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based, then the evidence in question was sufficient. United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 168 (5th Cir. 1999). In undertaking this analysis, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. at 168-69. “There are three elements to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base: (1) knowing (2) possession of the drugs in question (3) with intent to distribute them.” United States v. Suarez, 155 F.3d 521, 524-25 (5th Cir. 1998). To affirm on this charge, we must find that the evidence was sufficient to show that each of these elements has been satisfied. United States v. Miller, 146 F.3d 274, 280 (5th Cir. 1998). For a conviction of conspiracy under § 846, the evidence must be sufficient show that (1) at least two people had an agreement to traffic in drugs; (2) the defendants were aware of this agreement; and (3) the defendants knowingly and voluntarily participated in the implementation of this agreement. United States v. Medina, 161 F.3d 867, 872 (5th Cir. 1998). Mere presence at a crime scene, or close association with conspirators, standing alone, cannot rise to knowing participation in a conspiracy as a matter of law. United States 5 A. participation in a drug conspiracy. Id. The evidence was easily sufficient to support Ramos’s convictions. He was the one The instant case is different. Ramos who placed in Valois’s Acura the blue sports personally carried a bag containing several bag later found to contain five kilograms kilograms of cocaine from one car to another. cocaine. Although there was no direct proof While not everyone can be expected to know that Ramos knew cocaine was in the bag, such everything that is hidden in a car he happens to an inference is reasonably drawn, especially in be driving, it is reasonable to expect an light of the large quantity of cocaine in individual to know the contents of a gym bag question. he is carryingSSespecially when it is weighed down by several pounds of contraband.. Additionally, Ramos responded to a page from codefendant Russo telling him to meet B. her to pick up his portion of the proceeds from Although admittedly creating a closer case, the sale of his cocaine. Of course, as would be the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdicts expected in a transaction among drug dealers, against Moreno as well. The government’s the word “cocaine” was never explicitly used, main evidence against Moreno is the fact that but Russo explained to the police that cocaine he too responded to Russo’s page regarding was the subject of the call. The jury had the pick up of drug money. The ensuing before it only the transcript of this phone call telephone conversation between Moreno and and evidence regarding its context (namely, Russo was, however, more incriminating than that the call was made by Russo for the that between Ramos and Russo, for Moreno’s purpose of telling Ramos that his proceeds phone call discussed the possibility of from that day’s cocaine deal were available). providing additional amounts of cocaine for Under these circumstances, the jury had no sale. Moreno indicated to Russo that he could reason to believe that the call concerned not provide any more cocaine until he received anything other than cocaine. his money from the day’s earlier transaction. Again, the transcript of this call is devoid of Lastly, Ramos was seen cavorting with any specific mention of cocaine by name, but Valois. This constitutes further evidence that it does constitute quite damning evidence in Ramos and Valois were drug-dealing partners, light of Russo’s characterization of the adding to the reasonableness of the jury’s purpose of the call. The transcript of this verdict of guilty. recorded conversation, in conjunction with its attendant circumstances, is by itself sufficient Ramos unsuccessfully attempts to compare to support the jury’s verdicts against Moreno his situation to that in United States v. beyond a reasonable doubt. Sacerio, 952 F.2d 860 (5th Cir. 1992), in which we held that two defendants associated with a automobile containing cocaine could not be considered drug deal ing coconspirators. See id. at 864. But in Sacerio, police officers needed to conduct three searches of the vehicle in question before they were able to find the cocaine. Id. During one such search, rather than appear nervous or concerned, one defendant actually fell asleep. Id. Given that there was scant reason to believe that defendants in Sacerio knew that there were drugs in their car, we could not find that their behavior (namely, driving an automobile that happened to contain a hidden stash of cocaine) constituted knowing 6 C. Webster, 162 F.3d at 331. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict rendered against Rodriguez. He was The following were the facts and found in one of the two apartments from circumstances of Munera’s arrest: The police which Munera and Hernandez had exited. had just followed the Rodeo, involved in a When police knocked on the apartment door, drug transaction, to an apartment complex. Rodriguez ran from view and hid under a bed. The driverSSHernandezSShad just been The apartment in question contained over arrested and had told police that he had been eleven kilograms of cocaine, and eventually, delivering drugs for his friends Carlos and Rodriguez admitted that he had been paid to Jorge, who lived in the complex. Hernandez guard it. All of this is sufficient to establish pointed to a second-floor landing as the Rodriguez’s guilt in the substantive offense location of his friends’ apartment. This and in the conspiracy beyond a reasonable landing was also the location whence doubt. Hernandez came prior to his arrest.