Case: 19-11318 Date Filed: 02/28/2020 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-11318
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:17-cr-00544-LSC-JHE-4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NICHOLAS FAUSTO CISNERUS,
a.k.a. Nico,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(February 28, 2020)
Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 19-11318 Date Filed: 02/28/2020 Page: 2 of 5
After a jury trial, Nicholas Cisneros 1 was convicted of conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute heroin, cocaine hydrochloride, and methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(c), and 846. On appeal, Cisneros argues
that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty
verdict. After careful review, we affirm.
We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United States v. Reeves,
742 F.3d 487, 497 (11th Cir. 2014). In reviewing for evidentiary sufficiency, we
view the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, “in a light most favorable to the
jury verdict and draw all inferences in its favor.” Id.; United States v. Williams,
390
F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2004). We must affirm the conviction “if a reasonable
jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Reeves, 742
F.3d at 497.
To support a conviction for conspiracy to distribute illegal drugs in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 846, “the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that two
or more persons agreed to commit a drug-related offense, that the defendant knew
of the conspiracy, and that he agreed to become a member.” United States v. Louis,
861 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2017). The government must demonstrate that the
defendant “knew the essential nature of the conspiracy,”
id. (quotation marks
1
In his briefing, the appellant spells his last name “Cisneros.” We therefore use that
spelling.
2
Case: 19-11318 Date Filed: 02/28/2020 Page: 3 of 5
omitted), not that he knew “all the details,” United States v. Obregon,
893 F.2d 1307,
1311 (11th Cir. 1990). Indeed, a defendant may “be found guilty of a conspiracy
even if he plays only a minor role in the total scheme.”
Obregon, 893 F.3d at 1311
(quotation marks omitted). The evidence of a defendant’s guilt can be
circumstantial, “such as inferences from the conduct of the alleged participants or
from circumstantial evidence of a scheme.” United States v. Man,
891 F.3d 1253,
1265 (11th Cir. 2018) (quotation marks omitted). “But where the government relies
on circumstantial evidence, reasonable inferences, and not mere speculation, must
support the jury’s verdict.”
Id. (quotation marks omitted) (alteration adopted).
Cisneros argues that the evidence, even when viewed in the light most
favorable to the government, shows at best the existence of a buyer-seller
relationship, which is not sufficient to establish a conspiracy or Cisneros’s
participation in a conspiracy. He otherwise asserts that the evidence connecting him
to any drug conspiracy was weak and vague.
“A simple buyer-seller controlled substance transaction does not, by itself,
form a conspiracy.” United States v. Achey,
943 F.3d 909, 917 (11th Cir. 2019). But
“a conspiracy can be found if the evidence allows an inference that the buyer and
seller knew the drugs were for distribution instead of merely understanding their
transactions to do no more than support the buyer’s personal drug habit.”
Id.
(quotation marks omitted). Thus, “an agreement to distribute drugs may be inferred
3
Case: 19-11318 Date Filed: 02/28/2020 Page: 4 of 5
when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated
transfer of illegal drugs,” United States v. Thompson,
422 F.3d 1285, 1292 (11th Cir.
2005) (quotation marks omitted), or where the amount of drugs involved in a drug
transaction “allows an inference of a conspiracy to distribute drugs,”
Achey, 943
F.3d at 917.
Here, a reasonable jury could conclude that Cisneros knowingly participated
in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. DEA Special Agent Domingo
Gonzales testified about the investigation of a drug-trafficking organization that was
headed by Jose Martinez.2 Martinez, in turn, testified—after pleading guilty—that
he and Cisneros would buy drugs from each other. According to this testimony,
within a three-month period, Cisneros sold methamphetamine to Martinez four
times, with one of the purchases for one kilogram and the rest for one pound.
Cisneros bought cocaine from Martinez three or four times, paying $29,000 per
kilogram.
The amount of drugs involved supports an inference that the drugs were for
distribution, not mere personal use. See
Achey, 943 F.3d at 917. And the evidence
“shows a continuing relationship that result[ed] in the repeated transfer of illegal
2
In passing, Cisneros claims that the government offered an organizational chart of
Martinez’s drug-trafficking organization to create the “illusion” of a conspiracy. But Cisneros,
who was not listed on the chart, did not object to the chart at trial, and he does not properly raise
the matter on appeal. See Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co.,
739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir.
2014) (issues must be plainly and prominently raised on appeal).
4
Case: 19-11318 Date Filed: 02/28/2020 Page: 5 of 5
drugs.”
Thompson, 422 F.3d at 1292. From this testimony, a jury could reasonably
infer an agreement between Cisneros and Martinez to distribute illegal drugs.
Moreover, a reasonable jury could have concluded that Cisneros and
Martinez’s joint drug-trafficking activities extended beyond these drug transactions.
Martinez testified that Cisneros sometimes acted as a courier for him, transporting
heroin and methamphetamine. On one occasion, Martinez had Cisneros deliver a
kilogram of methamphetamine to another individual. Cisneros took the money and
gave Martinez a share of the profits. On another occasion, Cisneros offered to sell
one of four kilograms of cocaine that Martinez was about to receive. Martinez
further testified that, another time, he sent Cisneros to check on possible DEA
surveillance. Cisneros reported back that he had looked around and it was all clear.
A few days after that, Martinez and Cisneros discussed in a recorded conversation
what happened with a load of drugs, and Martinez appeared to take Cisneros’s word
over that of another coconspirator.
Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a
reasonable jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Cisneros
knowingly conspired with Martinez to possess with intent to distribute illegal drugs.
Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports Cisneros’s conviction. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5
