United States v. Perez-Perez ( 2013 )

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 12-1321
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee,
v.
JOSÉ RAFAEL PÉREZ-PÉREZ,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Juan M. Pérez-Giménez, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Selya and Lipez,
Circuit Judges.
Luis A. Guzmán Dupont on brief for appellant.
Rosa Emilia Rodríguez-Vélez, United States Attorney, Nelson
Pérez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorney, Chief, Appellate
Division, and Thomas F. Klumper, Assistant United States Attorney,
on brief for appellee.
March 15, 2013
Per Curiam. Law enforcement officials in Puerto Rico
designed a sting operation to ensnare corrupt police officers who
were providing protection services to drug dealers. Defendant-
appellant José Rafael Pérez-Pérez was caught in this net. A jury
convicted him on three counts charging conspiracy, attempted
distribution of drugs, and possession of a firearm in relation to
a drug-trafficking crime. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); see also 18 U.S.C. § 2.
The appellant now prosecutes a rifle-shot appeal, in
which he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
these convictions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. He contends that the
evidence is insufficient for a rational jury to find that he knew
he was going to participate in a drug transaction. He points
principally to his own testimony — that he only agreed to provide
armed protection to a transaction of diamonds or jewels — in
support of this argument.
The standard of review applicable to an appellant who
moves for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 at the close of
evidence is daunting. We must take the evidence and all reasonable
inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the government.
United States v. Singh, 222 F.3d 6, 8 (1st Cir. 2000). As part of
this tamisage, we must assume the credibility of all testimony
favorable to the government. See United States v. Fenton, 367 F.3d
14, 18 (1st Cir. 2004). Here, moreover, the appellant failed
-2-
properly to renew his motion for judgment of acquittal; thus, an
even higher obstacle looms. We will reverse his convictions only
if the verdict threatens to work a clear and gross injustice. See
United States v. Hicks, 575 F.3d 130, 139 (1st Cir. 2009).
The appellant cannot overcome either standard of review.
Taking the testimony of the government's principal witnesses,
Héctor Cotto-Rivera and Héctor López-Terrón, as true — as we must
— the evidence suffices to permit the jury to find each and every
element of the offenses of conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Specifically, the evidence permits the jury to find that the
appellant knew that he was involved in a drug transaction. The
testimony of the government's witnesses reveals that the appellant
was specifically informed that he would guard a cocaine
transaction. In addition, the video recordings presented by the
government reveal that packages resembling cocaine were within the
direct view of the appellant, who stood in close proximity while
the packages were inspected by the purported drug buyer. No more
is exigible to reject the appeal.
We need go no further. The judgment of the district
court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
Affirmed.
-3-