Comer
United States v. Comer
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Stacy Charles Comer appeals his conviction of conspiring to retaliate against a witness, retaliating against a witness, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to those offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 , 1513(b), and 924(c), respectively. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could conclude that there was a conspiratorial agreement between Comer and his co-conspirators, Brandon Traver and Raul Alvarado-Martinez, to retaliate against Curtis Wild, a federal witness. Comer discussed Wild being a “snitch” with both Traver and Avarado, told Traver to “punish” Wild, and instructed Avarado to bring Wild to his residence. When Avarado brought Wild to Comer’s residence at gunpoint, both Traver and Comer immediately assaulted Wild while Avarado held a gun to his head. This circumstantial evidence demonstrates the high degree of coordination sufficient to prove a conspiratorial agreement. See United States v. Hegwood, 977 F.2d 492, 497 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Iriarte-Ortega, 113 F.3d 1022, 1024-25 (9th Cir.1997).