United States v. Jose Zepeda-Ramirez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-50369
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:16-cr-00226-R-2
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOSE GUADALUPE ZEPEDA-RAMIREZ,
AKA Jose Guadalupe Zepeda Ramirez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 8, 2018
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and SIMON,** District
Judge.
Appellant Jose Guadalupe Zepeda-Ramirez appeals the jury’s verdict and
the district court’s order denying his motion for acquittal. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the
District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
1. We review the district court’s denial of a motion for acquittal de novo.
United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186, 1191–92 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation
omitted). In reviewing the motion and the jury’s verdict, we consider the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether “any rational
trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. at 1192 (citation omitted). Here, Zepeda-Ramirez and one
other person traveled to the United States from Mexico on a small boat (“panga”)
filled with 1,664 kilograms of marijuana. Zepeda-Ramirez knew the cargo was
marijuana and he helped steer the boat to the United States. Experienced law
enforcement officers testified that drug smuggling operations from Mexico to the
United States by panga require at least two people, and the panga Zepeda-Ramirez
arrived in contained equipment typically used by smugglers to coordinate with
partners to pick up the cargo after making landfall. A conversation between
Zepeda-Ramirez and the other occupant of the boat was covertly recorded after
they were arrested, in which Zepeda-Ramirez made statements from which the jury
could have inferred that he was involved in the smuggling operation and trying to
concoct the best possible exculpatory story. This evidence was sufficient for a
rational jury to convict Zepeda-Ramirez for both conspiracy to possess marijuana
with intent to distribute and for possession with intent to distribute marijuana.
AFFIRMED.
2