Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, J. Spencer Letts, District Judge, Presiding.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Alphonso Spearman appeals his conviction and sentence following his conviction by jury trial for possession with intent to distribute heroin and importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A). Spearman's attorney has filed a brief stating that she finds no meritorious issues for review and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Spearman did not file a supplemental pro se brief.
The only issue counsel identifies is whether there was sufficient admissible evidence to support Spearman's conviction. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports the inference that Spearman possessed heroin with the intent to distribute and imported heroin. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
The government here presented evidence of Spearman's possession of a large quantity of heroin, which is sufficient to support an inference of knowledge. See United States v. Davila-Escovedo, 36 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir.1994). Evidence of Spearman's possession was further supplemented with circumstantial evidence, which may prove knowledge or intent in cases involving possession or importation of large quantities of narcotics. See United States v. Walitwarangkul, 808 F.2d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir.1986).
The government also presented evidence of Spearman's nervousness and anxiety during both primary and secondary inspection conducted by United States Customs, see United States v. Barbosa, 906 F.2d 1366, 1368 (9th Cir.1990), and of his numerous inconsistent statements and implausible explanations to government officials regarding his trip to and business plans while in Thailand, see Davila-Escovedo, 36 F.3d at 843. The evidence presented overall was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crimes charged, and specifically, that Spearman had knowledge of the heroin in his luggage. See United States v. Lennick, 18 F.3d 814, 819 (9th Cir.1994) (explaining that circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from it may be sufficient to sustain conviction).
Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Accordingly, the motion of counsel to withdraw is GRANTED and the judgment is AFFIRMED.
In her opening brief, counsel requests that this court appoint new counsel for Spearman in order to evaluate and advise him regarding his recently expressed concern as to whether he received effective assistance during trial. We deny counsel's motion, but point out that should Spearman seek to file a section 2255 motion in the district court, he can move for appointment of counsel at that time. See United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.1990) (stating that there is no automatic right to counsel in section 2255 proceedings).