Opinion ID: 716393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: 31 Cisneros-Silva, Brahms-Garcia 1 , and Sanchez-Cervantes 2 argue that the district court erred when it denied the oral motions by all of the defendants for acquittal. They assert that their convictions on Count One, the conspiracy count, rested on insufficient evidence because the government failed to prove one overall conspiracy. They contend that the government only proved at most that multiple conspiracies existed. 32 For a motion for acquittal, the court must review the evidence presented against the defendant in a light most favorable to the government to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Riggins, 40 F.3d 1055, 1057 (9th Cir.1994). 33 The prior panel addressed this issue and held that there was ample proof provided by the government that a single conspiracy existed and also that once a conspiracy is shown to exist, evidence of a defendant's slight connection to it is sufficient to convict him of knowing participation in the conspiracy. We do not revisit this issue and affirm the district court's denial of the motions for acquittal.