United States v. Rodriguez , 302 F. App'x 206 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REYMUNDO MONGE RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00004-LHT-1)
Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: December 9, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN AND BERRY, PLLC, Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Mark A. Jones, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
On March 9, 2006, a jury convicted Reymundo Monge
Rodriguez of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846
(2006) (Count 1); possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count
2); possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2006) (Count 3); and possession of a
firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) (Count 4). Rodriguez was sentenced
to 235 months’ imprisonment on Counts 1 and 2; 120 months’
imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the term imposed
for Counts 1 and 2, on Count 3; and sixty months’ imprisonment,
to be served consecutively to the term imposed by Counts 1, 2,
and 3, on Count 4; for a total of 295 months’ imprisonment.
Rodriguez first contends that the Government’s
evidence at trial was insufficient to prove the existence of a
conspiracy between Rodriguez and any other person to possess
methamphetamine. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence faces a heavy burden, United States v. Beidler, 110
F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997), and “a decision [to reverse for
insufficient evidence] will be confined to cases where the
prosecution’s failure is clear,” Burks v. United States, 437
U.S. 1, 17 (1978) (footnote omitted). A jury’s verdict must be
2
upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record
to support it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80
(1942). In determining whether the evidence in the record is
substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the Government, and inquire whether there is evidence that a
reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and
sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-
63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In evaluating the sufficiency of
the evidence, this court does not review “the credibility of the
witnesses and assume[s] that the jury resolved all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government.”
United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007),
cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1690 (2008).
At trial, the Government presented evidence of
methamphetamine found among Rodriguez’s belongings during a
search of his room, as well as other circumstantial evidence
linking Rodriguez to the conspiracy. A search of a laundry room
in the house where Rodriguez and others lived yielded more
methamphetamine and drug distribution paraphernalia. Probative
evidence linked Rodriguez to this methamphetamine and drug
distribution paraphernalia. Finally, the Government offered the
testimony of an individual who had both purchased
methamphetamine and been present for the purchase of
3
methamphetamine from Rodriguez or his associates at this house
several times a week during a seven month period. Though
Rodriguez testified that the drugs found were not his, and that
he was not part of the conspiracy, we do not review the
credibility of witnesses and assume the jury resolved all
contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government. See
Foster, 507 F.3d at 245. We therefore conclude there was
sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction.
Rodriguez next contends his trial counsel was
ineffective by failing to file motions to suppress the evidence
seized from Rodriguez’s bedroom and inculpatory statements made
by Rodriguez after his arrest. Claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. See
United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295 (4th Cir. 1997).
Rather, to allow for adequate development of the record, a
defendant must bring his claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2008) motion. See id.; United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d
415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). An exception to this general rule
exists when the record conclusively establishes ineffective
assistance. See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198
(4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at 295. We find that, because
the record does not conclusively establish that Rodriguez’s
Fourth Amendment claims were meritorious or that his counsel was
4
ineffective by failing to raise them, Rodriguez’s ineffective
assistance claims are not cognizable on direct appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm Rodriguez’s convictions and
sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
5