Court Opinion

ID: 9407832
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 15:01:50.615096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.160189
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             For the Eighth Circuit
                         ___________________________

                                 No. 22-2665
                         ___________________________

                             United States of America

                                       Plaintiff - Appellee

                                         v.

                             Carmelo Valdez Romero

                                    Defendant - Appellant
                                  ____________

                     Appeal from United States District Court
                        for the Northern District of Iowa
                                 ____________

                           Submitted: January 12, 2023
                              Filed: July 10, 2023
                                 [Unpublished]
                                 ____________

Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
                           ____________

PER CURIAM.

       A jury found Carmelo Valdez Romero guilty of possession with intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of pure methamphetamine and aiding and abetting the
same, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), as well as 18 U.S.C. § 2.
However, the same jury acquitted him of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.
See 21 U.S.C. § 846. After the jury returned the verdict, Valdez Romero filed a
renewed motion for judgment of acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
29. The district court 1 denied the motion and subsequently sentenced Valdez
Romero to 120 months of imprisonment.

       On appeal, Valdez Romero argues the district court erred when it denied his
motion for judgment of acquittal. Under Rule 29(a), the district court is to enter a
judgment of acquittal for “any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to
sustain a conviction.” United States v. Nelson, 51 F.4th 813, 817 (8th Cir. 2022)
(quoting United States v. Broeker, 27 F.4th 1331, 1335 (8th Cir. 2022)). “We review
the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo, viewing the evidence and
all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict.” United
States v. McDonald, 826 F.3d 1066, 1072 (8th Cir. 2016). Judgment of acquittal
should be granted “only when no reasonable jury could have found the defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

       Valdez Romero contends the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain his
conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and
abetting the same. Under the United States Code, it is unlawful “for any person
knowingly or intentionally . . . to . . . possess with intent to manufacture, distribute,
or dispense, a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Thus, the crime
requires both knowing possession of and an intent to distribute a controlled
substance. See United States v. Bradshaw, 955 F.3d 699, 706 (8th Cir. 2020). As
for aiding and abetting, “the government must prove, ‘(1) the defendant associated
[himself] with the unlawful venture; (2) the defendant participated in it as something
[he] wished to bring about; and (3) the defendant sought by [his] actions to make it
succeed.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Ellefson, 419 F.3d 859, 863 (8th Cir. 2005)).

      Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, there
was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude Valdez Romero had aided

      1
        The Honorable Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge, United States District Court
for the Northern District of Iowa.
                                      -2-
and abetted possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. The jury
could have found Valdez Romero’s girlfriend, Delfina Torres-Perez, possessed
methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. There was witness testimony that
Torres-Perez met with two individuals to recruit their assistance in obtaining
pound-level quantities of methamphetamine.              According to the witness,
Torres-Perez’s plan was to fly to Las Vegas with one other person, get a rental
vehicle, and then proceed to California to acquire methamphetamine. They were to
make the return trip in the rental vehicle with the drugs inside the gasoline tank. The
witness testified the trip occurred essentially according to plan, and the pair returned
from California approximately one week after the meeting. Law enforcement later
seized fifteen pounds of methamphetamine from the location where the rental
vehicle was unloaded.

      Second, the jury could have found Valdez Romero aided and abetted
Torres-Perez’s illegal activity. Witnesses testified that Valdez Romero attended the
previously mentioned meeting led by Torres-Perez, drove the rental vehicle into a
machine shed after it arrived from California, and disassembled the vehicle to access
the gasoline tank and remove the drugs. There was also testimony that Valdez
Romero intended to use his own tools to access the tank. From these facts an
inference could reasonably be drawn that Valdez Romero associated with the
unlawful venture, participated in the scheme to bring it about, and wanted the venture
to succeed.

       Valdez Romero resists this conclusion. He argues the jury’s acquittal on the
conspiracy charge shows there was insufficient evidence on the possession-with-
intent-to-distribute charge. We disagree. To the extent that Valdez Romero insists
the verdict is inconsistent, such a position is barred by our precedent. See United
States v. Mata Trejo, 831 F.3d 1090, 1094 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating, “[b]ecause
different elements are required to prove conspiracy to distribute and possession with
intent to distribute, the jury verdicts are not inconsistent”). Furthermore, our review
is limited to “only ask[ing] whether the government presented sufficient evidence to
support the conviction.” McDonald, 826 F.3d at 1073 (quoting United States v.
                                          -3-
Opare-Addo, 486 F.3d 414, 416 (8th Cir. 2007)). For the reasons explained above,
the evidence the government presented was sufficient to support Valdez Romero’s
conviction for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute.

      The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
                     ______________________________

                                      -4-