United States v. Julie Choi

Julie Choi (“Choi”) appeals her conviction for one count of conspiring to distrib ute the illegal narcotic MDMA, also known as Ecstacy, and three substantive counts of distributing MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Choi contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s convictions and that no reasonable factfinder could have concluded that she was a participant in either the drug distribution conspiracy or in the three substantive distribution acts charged. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

We review de novo claims regarding the sufficiency of evidence supporting a criminal conviction. United States v. Bennett, 621 F.3d 1131, 1135 (9th Cir.2010). Sufficient evidence supports a conviction if, “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.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d.560 (1979); see also United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164-65, 1169 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc).

1. Regarding Choi’s three substantive distribution convictions, there…