Opinion ID: 688540
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Importation and Possession Convictions

Text: 9 There is also sufficient evidence to support Garcia's importation and possession convictions. In order to sustain the importation convictions, the government must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia knowingly possessed the drugs and brought them into the United States. Mora, 876 F.2d at 78. In order to sustain the possession with intent to distribute convictions, the government must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Garcia knowingly possessed the drugs with the intent to distribute them. Id. at 77, citing 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). As we said above, the jury reasonably could have inferred that Garcia knowingly possessed the drugs and brought them into the United States. As for his intent to distribute the drugs, either the quantity of the drugs seized, United States v. Innie, 7 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1567 (1994), or the fact that he was involved in a conspiracy to distribute drugs, is sufficient to support the jury's inference that Garcia had the requisite intent. See United States v. Ramos-Rascon, 8 F.3d 704, 711 (9th Cir. 1993). We must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve the evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved such matters in a manner which supports the verdict. United States v. Gillock, 886 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted). A rational trier of fact could find Garcia guilty of these charges. Here, too, there was no manifest miscarriage of justice or plain error. 10 AFFIRMED.