United States v. Isidro Benitez-Castillo , 699 F. App'x 680 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 23 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30112
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
3:14-cr-05159-BHS-5
v.
ISIDRO BENITEZ-CASTILLO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 3, 2017**
Seattle, Washington
Before: LIPEZ,*** WARDLAW, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Isidro Benitez-Castillo appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute a
controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Kermit V. Lipez, United States Circuit Judge for the
First Circuit, sitting by designation.
1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Benitez-
Castillo’s hearsay objection to Officer Jensen’s statement that he received
information from Daniel Reyes about a meeting with Benitez-Castillo. Officer
Jensen’s fleeting statement was not hearsay because it provided necessary
background and context for the initiation of his investigation, and therefore its
probative value was independent of its veracity. United States v. Echeverry, 759
F.2d 1451, 1457 (9th Cir. 1985).
2. The district court properly denied Benitez-Castillo’s motion for
acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 because sufficient evidence
supported Benitez-Castillo’s conviction. The jury found Reyes’ testimony
credible, and we must “respect the exclusive province of the fact finder to
determine the credibility of witnesses.” United States v. Archdale, 229 F.3d 861,
867 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Reyes’ testimony about Benitez-Castillo
orchestrating a methamphetamine transaction was concrete, internally consistent,
and uncontradicted. Along with the hundreds of contacts and attempted contacts
between Benitez-Castillo and co-conspirators, the evidence, viewed in the light
most favorable to the government, was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to
find the essential elements of a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. See
United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Express agreement
2
is not required; rather, agreement may be inferred from conduct.”) (citation
omitted); United States v. Lennick, 18 F.3d 814, 818–19 (9th Cir. 1994)
(describing elements of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances). Benitez-
Castillo’s conviction is neither plainly erroneous nor a manifest miscarriage of
justice.
AFFIRMED.
3