Opinion ID: 725455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: tanya cooper

Text: 30 Defendant advances the same argument and rationale as co-defendant A.C. Allen in claiming that it was reversible error for the district court to deny defendant's proposed accomplice jury instruction. We reject Defendant's argument on the same grounds. See Allen, supra at 9.
31 Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that she knew that the $930 in food stamps delivered to the meat store by Sims on March 5, 1994 had been purchased by Sims, or that she knew Sims' acquisition was illegal. 32 The test for sufficiency of the evidence is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) (emphasis in original). This court must respect the exclusive province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts, and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts, by assuming that the jury resolved all such matters in a manner which supports the verdict. United States v. Gillock, 86 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). 33 7 U.S.C. § 2024(b)(1) provides in pertinent part: 34 whoever knowingly uses, transfers, acquires, alters or possesses [food stamp] coupons ... in any manner contrary to this chapter or the regulations issued pursuant to this chapter, shall, if such coupons ... are of a value of $100 or more ... be guilty of a felony ... 35 The evidence belies Defendant's claimed lack of knowledge. First, the government has the tape-recorded conversation between Sims and Cooper. The exchange between Defendant and Sims indicates that she was not ignorant of what was going on. During that conversation, Defendant indicated that she was going to 'check in' Sims; Sims told Defendant that L. Cooper sent him out with five hundred dollars and that he was getting food stamps at 40 cents on the dollar. From this the jury could infer that Defendant knew Sims was purchasing stamps at a cash discount, which is unlawful. Sims also stated that he was doing well because the purchasers were smokers, an obvious reference to crack users. When told by Sims that his spot for selling stamps was right across from the federal building, defendant responded, they don't even be paying attention, they just know what's going on. Sims continued discussing selling food stamps, and was admonished by defendant not to let anyone see him put them books up ... so they won't get 'em. 36 Defendant's protestations that she had no knowledge of the food stamp regulations are no more persuasive than were Leonard Cooper's. It is not necessary that the government prove the defendant's knowledge of specific regulations governing food stamp acquisition or possession. Liparota, 471 U.S. 419 at 434. It is sufficient if the government proves defendant's knowledge by reference to facts and circumstances surrounding the case. Id. 37 Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could conclude that Tanya Cooper had knowledge that Sims', and therefore her own acquisition of food stamps was in a manner unauthorized by statute or regulation.
38 Defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion in curtailing defendant's cross-examination of Agent Gossard and violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. 39 The district court's decision to limit the scope of cross-examination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397, 1405 (9th Cir.1991), as are its rulings on the relevancy of evidence. United States v. Daly, 974 F.2d 1215, 1216-17 (9th Cir.1992). 40 The trial court sustained the government's relevancy objection to defense cross-examination of Agent Gossard during which counsel sought to elicit testimony that specialized training, expertise and an opportunity to review pertinent documents, which Tanya Cooper lacked, was necessary to enable her to analyze the factual data on food stamp redemption rates offered by the government. 41 As the government points out, the inability or lack of opportunity to perform complicated data analysis does not preclude defendant from being aware of food stamp trafficking. The district court determined appropriately that the inquiry lacked relevance because the government did not seek to prove that defendant had a duty to perform such a business analysis. The district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting cross-examination. The judgments and sentences of the district court are AFFIRMED as to all defendants.