Opinion ID: 820512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Lopez-Soto contends the evidence the government presented at trial was insufficient to sustain her conviction because the government supported its case with testimony from indicted drug dealers who sought to minimize their prison sentences. She also objects to the lack of direct evidence showing she deposited money into Arbelaez's bank account. We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict and granting the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences. United States v. Zierke, 618 F.3d 755, 760 (8th Cir. 2010) (quotation and citation omitted). If a reasonable jury could have found Lopez-Soto guilty, we must affirm her conviction. Id. (quotation and citation omitted). To sustain Lopez-Soto’s conspiracy conviction, the government was required to prove (1) a conspiracy existed to distribute methamphetamine; (2) Lopez-Soto knew of the conspiracy; and (3) Lopez-Soto intentionally joined the conspiracy. See United States v. Becker, 534 F.3d 952, 957 (8th Cir. 2008). The government -5- presented the testimony of nine co-conspirators, each of whom testified about LopezSoto's role in Beltran's drug trafficking operation. Their testimony established LopezSoto ran the operation when Bustamante was gone, sold methamphetamine from her home, collected drug money owed to Beltran, and made cross-country trips to obtain methamphetamine. This evidence is more than sufficient to satisfy the three required elements to convict. Lopez-Soto's objection to the government's use of indicted drug dealers to support its case amounts to a challenge to the credibility determinations made by the jury. The jury heard and credited the testimony of the government's witnesses, and its findings are virtually unreviewable on appeal. United States v. Boyce, 564 F.3d 911, 916 (8th Cir. 2009) (quotation and citation omitted). LopezSoto's argument is without merit. So too with Lopez-Soto's challenge to her conspiracy to commit money laundering conviction. [T]he three essential elements of conspiracy to launder money are (1) an agreement . . . to launder money; (2) the defendant's voluntary joinder of the agreement; and (3) the defendant's knowing joinder of the agreement. United States v. Jarrett, 684 F.3d 800, 802 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotation and citation omitted). On at least three occasions, Beltran asked Lopez-Soto to make deposits into Arbelaez's bank account. Lopez-Soto also mentioned to Kyle Geary that Beltran was waiting on her to make a deposit. Moreover, Lopez-Soto supervised Dizdarevic when Dizdarevic made deposits. The co-conspirators limited their deposits to less than $10,000 in an attempt to conceal their drug trafficking activity. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, this is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude Lopez-Soto knowingly and voluntarily joined an agreement to launder money.