Opinion ID: 74370
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Against Urbina

Text: Urbina separately appeals his convictions on the ground that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements 10 of the crimes charged.4 We review the evidence supporting a guilty verdict to determine whether “a reasonable jury, choosing among reasonable constructions of the evidence, could have found that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Richardson, 764 F.2d 1514, 1524 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549 (5th Cir. Unit B 1982) (en banc),5 aff’d on other grounds, 462 U.S. 356, 103 S. Ct. 2398 (1983)). All factual and credibility inferences are drawn in favor of the Government. See Bell, 678 F.2d at 549. Urbina was convicted of four counts of possession of narcotics with intent to distribute and one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute narcotics. Urbina argues on appeal that the Government neither established his possession of the narcotics found in Room 616, nor his involvement in the criminal conspiracy. We find his arguments to be without merit, as the record reveals ample evidence on which a reasonable jury could have predicated its guilty verdicts. Convictions for the possession of narcotics can be premised on either actual or constructive possession, see United States v. Ramos, 666 F.2d 469, 475 (11th 4 In his appellate brief, Cooper adopts those issues raised by Urbina on appeal insofar as they affect Cooper. “[S]ufficiency arguments[, however,] are too individualized to be generally adopted.” United States v. Davis, 61 F.3d 291, 296 n.2 (5th Cir. 1995). Cooper therefore has not properly raised the issue on appeal, and we decline to consider it. 5 Decisions by Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit issued after September 30, 1981, are binding on this court. See Stein v. Reynolds Sec., Inc., 667 F.2d 33, 34 (11th Cir. 1982). 11 Cir. 1982), and to prove constructive possession, the Government needed only to demonstrate that Urbina “knew the identity of the substance[s] and exercised dominion and control over [them],” Richardson, 764 F.2d at 1525, which the jury was free to infer from circumstantial evidence. To sustain the conspiracy count, “the [G]overnment [did not need to] prove that [Urbina] had knowledge of all details or phases of a conspiracy[, but only] that [Urbina] knew the essential nature of the conspiracy.” United States v. Payne, 750 F.2d 844, 859 (11th Cir. 1985). The trial evidence adequately supports the jury’s ultimate conclusions that Urbina at a minimum constructively possessed the narcotics in Room 6166 and was engaged in the ongoing criminal conspiracy. In addition to observing Urbina frequenting the sixth floor of the hotel at unusual hours of the morning, O’Brien testified that on one occasion, he even assisted Urbina in entering Room 616 because Urbina’s key was not working properly, indicating Urbina had authorized access to Room 616 prior to his arrest there.7 Urbina’s recurrent and somewhat 6 Further buttressing the sufficiency of the evidence of Urbina’s guilt on the four possession counts is the fact that those counts also charged Urbina with “aiding and abetting” in the possession of the narcotics. To prove Urbina was an “aider and abetter,” the Government needed only to demonstrate Urbina “willfully associated himself with the enterprise to possess the [narcotics] and contributed to its success.” Richardson, 764 F.2d at 1525; see also United States v. Hewitt, 663 F.2d 1381, 1385 (11th Cir. 1981). The evidence discussed above also reasonably supports such a finding by the jury. 7 We recognize Urbina’s possession of the key to Room 616 might appear in tension with our earlier holding that Urbina had no expectation of privacy in the hotel room. Aside from Urbina’s failure to mention this fact in his motion to suppress, however, other courts have held that possession 12 erratic association with the room where the narcotics were discovered, coupled with the large sum of currency found on his person at the time of his arrest, provide a sufficient foundation for the jury’s guilty verdicts on all five counts of the indictment.