United States v. Octavio Mendoza-Morales

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 03 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-30157
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:05-cr-00098-KI
v.
MEMORANDUM*
OCTAVIO MENDOZA-MORALES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Garr M. King, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 12, 2010
Portland, Oregon
Before: PREGERSON, WARDLAW and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Octavio Mendoza-Morales appeals his conviction for conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine and heroin and possession. The parties are familiar
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
with the facts of this case, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to
explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.1
“Typically, the inference of an overall agreement [between conspirators] is
drawn from proof of a single objective or from proof that the key participants and
the method of operation remained constant throughout the conspiracy.” United
States v. Fernandez, 388 F.3d 1199, 1226 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the evidence
indicates that key participants, including Appellant, repeatedly used similarly
designed, locked secret compartments in different cars to facilitate drug sales. This
evidence supports an inference of an overall agreement.
“The inference that a defendant had reason to believe that his benefits were
dependent on the success of the entire venture may be drawn from proof that the
coconspirators knew of each other’s participation . . . .” Id. Here, Appellant knew
that both he and a coconspirator had access to drugs inside garage #7. Appellant
also repeatedly agreed to give drugs to other coconspirators. The evidence
demonstrates that Appellant knew of co-conspirators’ involvement. As a member
of the conspiracy, Appellant is responsible for the acts of his co-conspirators.
Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231 F.3d at 1202-3.
1
As this court has previously noted, our conclusion is the same whether we
review de novo or for plain error. See United States v. Alvarez-Valenzuela, 231
F.3d 1198, 1201 (9th Cir. 2000).
2
Accordingly, Appellant’s conviction is AFFIRMED.
3