Opinion ID: 778658
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Sufficiency of the evidence to establish venue for Count 12

Text: 80 Arturo Meza argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for acquittal as to Count 12 when the government offered insufficient evidence that any of the events described therein occurred on August 19, 1997, in the Eastern District of Texas, as required for venue. Mendez raises the same argument and also argues that the government failed to prove venue for the most prejudicial overt acts charged against him in Count 1. 70 81 We review the district court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. 71 Where a defendant argues that the government failed to adduce evidence sufficient to support venue for a particular count, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the verdict. 72 According to statute, [w]hen an offense is begun in one district and completed in another, venue is proper in any district in which the offense was `begun, continued, or completed,' 73 and venue is properly based on a preponderance of the evidence showing the commission of any single act that was part of the beginning, continuation, or completion of the crime. 74 We have held that, [a]lthough the government must prove venue by the preponderance of the evidence, circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to establish venue. 75 82 Our review of the record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence that the heroin distributed as alleged in Count 12 was transported from the Eastern District of Texas on August 19 and delivered as part of the conspiracy to an apartment that, as the government stipulated, is located in the Northern District of Texas. 76 We note that, under Pinkerton liability, the government need not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Arturo Meza himself transported the drugs from the Eastern District, but only that he or one of his co-conspirators did so. The district court did not err in ruling that there was sufficient evidence that one or more of the Meza brothers traveled with the heroin alleged in Count 12 from the Eastern District. As for Mendez's second argument, venue is not required over all overt acts alleged in Count 1, and so his argument on this score is without merit. 77 83