United States v. Martin Murillo-Barriga

MEMORANDUM *

Martin Murillo Barriga challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 21 U.S.C. § 846 , and the substantive reasonableness of his 200-month sentence. Isidro Madrigal Galvan challenges the sufficiency of the government’s evidence that he constructively possessed firearms found in a storage unit rented by his wife. Both defendant-appellants challenge the district court’s admission of a government exhibit showing the telephone contacts between the members of the conspiracy. We have *793 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. There was sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict Murillo Barri-ga of conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. See United States v. Herrera-Gonzalez, 263 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2001) (“We review sufficiency of evidence challenges to determine whether ‘viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

In No. 13-30060, I concur fully in the majority’s disposition.

In No. 13-30083, I concur in all of the majority’s disposition, except for its affir-mance of the conviction on Counts 22 and 24. For the reasons that follow, I dissent from Part 3 of the disposition.

Defendant Madrigal Galvan (“Madrigal”) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence in support of his conviction for possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), 21 U.S.C. § 846 , and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 22), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1) (Count 24). His conviction was based on methamphetamine and firearms’ found in a storage unit leased to Renee Gomez, his wife. The government’s theory is that Madrigal’s guilt is sufficiently established under the “constructive” possession doctrine. 1 Madrigal contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions because it does not reasonably support the inference that he possessed either the drugs or the firearms. I agree and would reverse…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 15 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30060

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00108-EFS-

v.

MEMORANDUM*

MARTIN MURILLO BARRIGA,

Defendant - Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30083

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00108-EFS-

v.

ISIDRO MADRIGAL GALVAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Edward F. Shea, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 7, 2014 Seattle, Washington

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Martin Murillo Barriga challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying

his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii) and 21 U.S.C. § 846, and the substantive

reasonableness of his 200-month…