United States v. Juan Rodriguez , 207 F. App'x 733 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                       United States Court of Appeals
    for the Eighth Circuit
    ___________
    No. 06-2437
    ___________
    United States of America,            *
    *
    Plaintiff - Appellee,    *
    *    Appeal from the United States
    v.                             *    District Court for the District
    *    of South Dakota.
    Juan Rodriguez,                      *
    *    [UNPUBLISHED]
    Defendant - Appellant. *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 17, 2006
    Filed: December 5, 2006
    ___________
    Before MELLOY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Following a jury trial, Defendant Juan Rodriguez was convicted of conspiring
    to distribute in excess of five kilograms of a mixture or substance containing cocaine
    in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district court1 sentenced him to
    135 months’ imprisonment. His conviction was supported by the testimony of
    numerous coconspirators. He now argues that his coconspirators were not credible
    and that their testimony is insufficient to support the conviction. This argument is
    without merit, and we will not disturb the jury’s credibility assessments on appeal.
    1
    The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the
    District of South Dakota.
    United States v. Hernandez, 
    301 F.3d 886
    , 889 (8th Cir. 2002) (“The court should not
    assess the credibility of the witnesses or weigh the evidence.”).
    Regarding sentencing, Rodriguez challenges the district court’s drug quantity
    determination as being clearly erroneous. This argument, too, is without merit. The
    jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy involved over five
    kilograms of cocaine. The jury’s finding was supported by substantial evidence,
    including coconspirator testimony that placed the drug quantity at an amount
    substantially greater than five kilograms. At sentencing, the district court was
    required to determine a drug quantity under the preponderance of the evidence
    standard, and the district court adopted the five kilogram quantity found by the jury.
    “It is axiomatic that a fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt cannot simultaneously
    be disproved by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Campos, 
    362 F.3d 1013
    , 1016 (8th Cir. 2004).
    We affirm the judgment of the district court.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-2437

Citation Numbers: 207 F. App'x 733

Filed Date: 12/5/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023