Opinion ID: 169559
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Lastly, we consider whether M r. Lopez-Garcia’s conviction is supported by sufficient evidence. W e review the record de novo to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Yehling, 456 F.3d 1236, 1240 (10th Cir. 2006). “W e consider both direct and circum stantial evidence, together with the reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, but do not weigh conflicting evidence or consider the credibility of witnesses.” Id. The government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that M r. Lopez-Garcia (1) possessed the controlled substance; (2) knew he possessed the controlled substance; and (3) intended to distribute or dispense the controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Under sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), possession can be either actual or constructive. “Constructive possession may be established by circumstantial evidence and may be joint among several individuals.” United States v. -8- M cKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1291 (10th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted). Constructive possession requires that the defendant knowingly have “ownership, dominion or control over the narcotics and premises where the narcotics are found.” Id. (quotation omitted). W here the location of the narcotics is jointly occupied, “the government must present direct or circumstantial evidence to show some connection or nexus individually linking the defendant to the contraband.” United States v. Valadez-Gallegos, 162 F.3d 1256, 1262 (10th Cir. 1998). There must be “some evidence supporting at least a plausible inference that the defendant had knowledge of and access to the contraband.” Id. (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The evidence submitted at trial sufficiently linked M r. Lopez-Garcia to the cocaine found in the blue Ford Taurus. Not only was the car registered and insured under his name, but the evidence created a strong inference that he and M r. Ticas were using the car in an on-going operation to transport narcotics from California throughout the country. Indeed, the jury heard testimony that six days earlier, M r. Ticas and M r. Lopez were stopped in the blue Taurus on Interstate 40 in North Carolina. Prior to that, on November 30, 2005, M r. Lopez-Garcia was driving the blue Taurus on Interstate 40 near the east Texas border when he was stopped by Trooper Doug Acker. Trooper Acker testified that M r. Lopez-Garcia produced insurance documents listing a man named Jorge Hernandez as the owner of the car and the primary insured. Documents also indicated that -9- M r. Lopez Garcia shared the same California address as Jorge Hernandez, and the same Illinois address as M r. Ticas. Significantly, business cards for George Hernandez were found in both cars, and M r. Lopez-Garcia and M r. Ticas both testified that they had been operating under the direction of Jorge Hernandez, who had on this occasion instructed them to drive the cars from Los A ngeles to Chicago. Aside from this evidence, direct evidence obtained from the Oklahoma stop was sufficient to sustain M r. Lopez-Garcia’s conviction. He was a passenger in a car found to have a hidden compartment containing cocaine. The car was registered and insured in his name. During the stop, M r. Ticas acknowledged that he was traveling with M r. Lopez-Garcia, and he was keenly attentive to what was transpiring between M r. Lopez-Garcia and the officers. M oreover, the drugs were found in cars traveling in tandem w ith the exact same make and model, the exact same hidden compartment, containing nearly the exact same quantity of cocaine. Under the totality of circumstances, the evidence was sufficient to sustain M r. Lopez-G arcia’s conviction. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Deanell Reece Tacha