Opinion
No. 18-30010
05-16-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SERGIO CHAVEZ-MACIAS, AKA Sergio Armando Chavez-Macias, Defendant-Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00067-BLW-1 MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 14, 2019 Seattle, Washington Before: O'SCANNLAIN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, District Judge.
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 David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. --------
Sergio Chavez-Macias appeals his conviction following a jury trial for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and the district court's denial of his motion for acquittal, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.
Reviewed de novo and construed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a rational jury to find every element of the conspiracy charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Niebla-Torres, 847 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2017); United States v. Wiggan, 700 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir. 2012). The jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of David Wales and other witnesses, that Chavez-Macias agreed with some combination of Wales, co-defendant Sergio Chavez-Verduzco, and others to sell methamphetamine. Indeed, Wales testified that Chavez-Macias did exactly that. "It is well established that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may be sufficient to sustain a conviction," United States v. Katakis, 800 F.3d 1017, 1028 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Dodge, 538 F.2d 770, 783 (8th Cir. 1976)), and we do not review a jury's credibility determinations on appeal, United States v. Endicott, 803 F.2d 506, 515 (9th Cir. 1986). The Government's additional evidence of text messages that its expert testified referred to drug transactions provided further evidence to support the verdict.
AFFIRMED.