Court Opinion

ID: 9892327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 17:00:59.830434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:41.057310
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 23 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No.    22-30200

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No.
                                                4:22-cr-00040-BMM-1
 v.

AARON RAMIREZ ESPINOZA,                         MEMORANDUM*

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the District of Montana
                    Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted October 19, 2023**
                                Portland, Oregon

Before: GILMAN,*** KOH, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

      Defendant Aaron Espinoza appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
            The Honorable Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
§ 846. We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence de novo. See United

States v. Barragan, 871 F.3d 689, 705 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      Sufficient evidence supported Espinoza’s conviction. We “must consider the

evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” and then

“determine whether this evidence, so viewed, is adequate to allow ‘any rational

trier of fact [to find] the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable

doubt.’” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc)

(alteration in original) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).

Espinoza argues that statements he made to a co-conspirator, St. Pierre, cannot be

considered because St. Pierre was a government informant when those

conversations occurred. However, there is also evidence showing that Espinoza

engaged in the conspiracy to sell methamphetamine and fentanyl before St. Pierre

became a government informant. Even assuming we may consider only the

evidence that pre-dated St. Pierre working as an informant, that evidence, viewed

in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient to support the

conviction.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2