Opinion ID: 68289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: e nrique a lvarez

Text: Alvarez appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. He argues that the evidence insufficiently supported a finding that the government proved the indicted drug quantity. Instead, he argues, he should have been convicted of the lesser-included offense involving more than 100 but fewer than 1000 marijuana plants. The applicable standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Jackson, 544 F.3d 1176, 1186 n.14 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 1925 (2009). Under that standard, we review de novo the denial of the motion for judgment of acquittal, “draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the government[,] and determine whether a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). “We will not reverse a conviction for insufficient evidence in a non-jury trial unless, upon reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Schaltenbrand, 930 F.2d 1554, 1560 (11th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). We review the district court's bench trial 3 findings of fact for clear error. O'Ferrell v. United States, 253 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, the district court used two calculation methods to determine that Alvarez’s offense involved at least 1,000 marijuana plants, each time erroneously counting marijuana clones as plants. Under the first method, however, the court calculated 1,002 plants before counting any of the clones. That first calculation reflects the court’s apparent acceptance of the government’s theory that Alvarez was involved in the conspiracy for at least six ninety-day growing cycles, each of which produced 167 plants. Since a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the evidence supporting the government’s theory established Alvarez’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, we affirm Alvarez’s conviction.