United States v. Alicia Rivera

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4448
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALICIA GARCIA RIVERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00222-JCC-2)
Submitted: February 12, 2015 Decided: February 18, 2015
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph R. Conte, LAW OFFICE OF J.R. CONTE, P.L.L.C., Washington,
D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney,
Edward J. Reilly, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alicia Garcia Rivera appeals from her conviction for
conspiracy to import heroin. She challenges the district
court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence and the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. Finding
no error, we affirm.
We first review Rivera’s argument that the district
court erred in denying her motion to suppress statements she
made to agents of the Homeland Security Investigations and the
Drug Enforcement Administration. We review factual findings
underlying a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress for
clear error and legal conclusions de novo. United States v.
Foster, 634 F.3d 243, 246 (4th Cir. 2011). We may reverse for
clear error only if “left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Wooden,
693 F.3d 440, 451 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Because the district court denied the motion to
suppress, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable
to the Government, the party prevailing below. United States v.
Black, 707 F.3d 531, 534 (4th Cir. 2013). We defer to the
district court’s credibility findings. United States v.
Griffin, 589 F.3d 148, 150 n.1 (4th Cir. 2009). After reviewing
the evidence, we determine that the district court did not err
in denying the motion to suppress and affirm for the detailed
2
reasons stated by the court. United States v. Rivera, No.
1:13-cr-00222-JCC-2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 6, 2014).
Next, we address Rivera’s challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence. Rivera moved under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 for a
judgment of acquittal. We review the denial of a motion for
judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Strayhorn, 743
F.3d 917, 921 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2689 (2014).
A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces “a
heavy burden.” United States v. McLean, 715 F.3d 129, 137 (4th
Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). The jury verdict
must be sustained if “there is substantial evidence in the
record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the
government, to support the conviction.” United States v.
Jaensch, 665 F.3d 83, 93 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation
marks omitted). “Substantial evidence 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.” Id. (alteration and internal quotation
marks omitted). Furthermore, “the jury, not the reviewing
court, weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any
conflicts in the evidence presented.” McLean, 715 F.3d at 137
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Reversal for insufficient
evidence is reserved for the rare case where the prosecution’s
3
failure is clear.” United States v. Ashley, 606 F.3d 135, 138
(4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).
To convict Rivera of conspiracy to import heroin, the
Government had to prove the following essential elements: (1) an
agreement between two people to import heroin; (2) the defendant
knew of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily participated in the conspiracy. United States v.
Green, 599 F.3d 360, 367 (4th Cir. 2010). Having reviewed the
record, we conclude that Rivera’s conviction was supported by
sufficient evidence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4