United States v. Xin He

MEMORANDUM

Xin He appeals her felony conviction, following a bench trial, of misbranding of a drug held for sale, with intent to defraud or mislead, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331 (k) and 333(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We find sufficient indicia in the record to support a conclusion that the district judge properly interpreted 21 U.S.C. § 333 (a)(2). Thus, we review whether there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant’s felony conviction. Our review of the sufficiency of evidence is governed by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2010). First, we consider “the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” Id. at 1164 . We 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.’ ” Id. (quoting Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 ). Reversal is appropriate only “if the evidence of innocence, or lack of evidence of guilt, is such that all rational fact finders would have to conclude that…