Opinion ID: 180313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency and Instructions Claims

Text: Given the applicable scienter rule, Andino's sufficiency and instructions claims can be disposed of in short order.
We review sufficiency challenges de novo, asking only whether the record evidence could reasonably support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Hassan, 578 F.3d at 122 (internal quotation omitted). Andino challenges the sufficiency of the evidence only as it relates to the government's scienter burden; he does not challengeand we therefore do not reviewthe sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to any other element of his conspiracy conviction. In light of our conclusion that, to establish the scienter here, the government was required to prove only an intent to distribute a controlled substance, we find that the scienter burden was easily satisfied by Andino's admission that he thought the package contained marijuana. We therefore reject Andino's sufficiency claim.
We will vacate a conviction on account of a missing requested instruction if (1) the requested instruction was legally correct; (2) it represents a theory of defense with basis in the record that would lead to acquittal; and (3) the theory is not effectively presented elsewhere in the charge. United States v. Prawl, 168 F.3d 622, 626 (2d Cir.1999) (internal quotation omitted). Andino alleges that the District Court erroneously refused to instruct the jury that it must acquit Mr. Andino if he believed he would be receiving marijuana instead of cocaine. App. Br. at 52. For reasons already discussed, the proposed charge was an incorrect statement of law, and hence fails to satisfy the first prong of the Prawl test. Accordingly, we reject Andino's challenge to the jury instructions.