Opinion ID: 213826
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gómez's Drug Conviction

Text: Gómez argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. Gómez notes that Alverio, not he, spoke to and negotiated with Rodríguez, and that he was never seen handling the drugs. In addition, Gómez contends that because the government did not perform any fingerprint analysis on the lunch box containing the drugs, it is unclear whether or not he owned the drugs. Furthermore, Gómez points out that no government agent could corroborate Rodríguez's testimony that Alverio identified Gómez as the owner of the drugs on the day of the arrest. Gómez suggests that Rodríguez's testimony alone is insufficient to sustain his conviction because Rodríguez, who has been convicted of homicide and various other crimes, is not a credible witness. In order to sustain a conviction for conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the evidence must show that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the defendant had knowledge of the conspiracy, and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy. United States v. Pomales-Lebrón, 513 F.3d 262, 267 (1st Cir. 2008). To prove the underlying offense of possession with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), the government must establish that a defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed, either actually or constructively, a controlled substance with the specific intent to distribute. United States v. García-Carrasquillo, 483 F.3d 124, 130 (1st Cir.2007). In light of these standards, we conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Gómez guilty. The government provided abundant evidence that Gómez provided the drugs for the transaction and was not merely an unlucky bystander. First, Rodríguez testified at trial that Gómez was present when he first met with Alverio at his mother's house to discuss re-entering the drug business, and that Gómez, whom Rodríguez knew as El Flaco, was the person who told him about prices while Alverio looked on silently. In addition, the government played a recording of a conversation between Alverio and Rodríguez from February 4, 2009, during which Rodríguez asked if the drugs he was going to buy belonged to the skinny guy whom he had met at his mother's house, and Alverio responded affirmatively. Furthermore, toll records showed that after Alverio spoke with Rodríguez on February 4, the same phone that Alverio had used to speak with Rodríguez was used to dial a cell phone number that corresponded to the cell phone that Gómez had on the day of the arrest. Given Alverio's comment during the recorded phone call that he was going to call the friend who had the cocaine, the fact that his phone was used to call Gómez's phone provides particularly strong support for the conclusion that Gómez was the source of the drugs. A second phone call from Alverio's phone to Gómez's phone, placed immediately after Rodríguez called Alverio on the morning of February 5th, also supports the government's theory. [3] In addition, Rodríguez testified at trial that Alverio said on the day of the drug transaction that the man with him in the car was the owner of the drugs. Rodríguez also noted that Gómez, after some delay, acknowledged that he remembered Rodríguez, which supports the government's theory that the man in the car was the same man that Rodríguez met initially at his mother's house. Moreover, the very fact that Gómez was in the car when the drug transaction took place provides support for the government's theory that he was a coconspirator. As Agent Alverio testified, it is not common for drug traffickers to bring innocent people to drug transactions. Of course, however, mere presence at the scene of conspiracy activities or simple association with conspirators is not enough, standing alone, to establish participation in a conspiracy. United States v. Rodríguez-Ortiz, 455 F.3d 18, 23 (1st Cir. 2006). Finally, Gómez's argument that the evidence against him was insufficient because Rodríguez was not a credible witness is meritless. It is not for us to make credibility determinations in the course of a review of the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Morales-Machuca, 546 F.3d 13, 21 (1st Cir.2008). A conviction may be based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a confidential informant so long as the testimony is not incredible or insubstantial on its face. United States v. Gonzalez-Vazquez, 219 F.3d 37, 46 (1st Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Rodríguez's testimony is not incredible or insubstantial on its face, nor is it entirely uncorroborated. Toll records and recordings of phone conversations support his version of events. For all these reasons, the evidence was sufficient to enable a rational factfinder to convict Gómez on the drug count.