United States v. Juan Jose Padilla ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 01-2998
    ___________
    United States of America,                *
    *
    Appellee,                   * Appeal from the United States
    * District Court for the
    v.                                 * District of Nebraska.
    *
    Juan Jose Padilla,                       *      [UNPUBLISHED]
    *
    Appellant.                  *
    ___________
    Submitted: February 5, 2002
    Filed: February 6, 2002
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    A jury found Juan Jose Padilla guilty of conspiring to distribute at least 50 but
    less than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The district court1 sentenced him to 78
    months in prison and five years supervised release. Padilla appeals, challenging the
    sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of his request for a downward departure.
    We affirm.
    1
    The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, Chief Judge, United States District
    Court for the District of Nebraska.
    At trial, two witnesses testified that Padilla sold them resale quantities of
    methamphetamine, and introduced one of them to other methamphetamine sources.
    Another witness testified that Padilla and an alleged conspirator provided a reseller
    with methamphetamine which was stored for later distribution. The jurors were free
    to accept or reject any witness’s testimony in whole or in part. See United States v.
    One Star, 
    979 F.2d 1319
    , 1321(8th Cir. 1992). Examining the evidence in the light
    most favorable to the jury verdict and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable
    inferences, see United States v. Robinson, 
    217 F.3d 560
    , 564 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,
    
    531 U.S. 999
     (2000), we conclude the evidence supports Padilla’s conspiracy
    conviction. See United States v. Miller, 
    91 F.3d 1160
    , 1162 (8th Cir. 1996) (evidence
    of multiple sales of resale quantities of drugs is sufficient to make submissible case
    of conspiracy to distribute); United States v. Dugan, 
    238 F.3d 1041
    , 1044-45 (8th Cir.
    2001) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge credibility of witnesses).
    The district court’s discretionary decision to deny Padilla’s request to depart
    downward is unreviewable. See United States v. Saelee, 
    123 F.3d 1024
    , 1025 (8th
    Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we affirm and deny Padilla’s pending motion for new
    counsel.
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-