UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4846
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JORGE ANTONIO MOLINA MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,
Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00297-2)
Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: May 7, 2007
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott H. Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, Thomas T. Cullen, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jorge Antonio Molina Martinez appeals his conviction of
conspiracy to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and
possession with intent to distribute cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)
(2000). Because the evidence was sufficient to convict, we affirm.
At the close of the evidence, Martinez moved pursuant to Fed.
R. Crim. P. 29 for judgment of acquittal. We review the district
court’s denial of that motion de novo. See United States v.
Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 700 (4th Cir. 2006). Where, as here, the
motion was based on a claim of insufficient evidence, “[t]he
verdict of a jury must be sustained if there is substantial
evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to
support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
Testimony at trial established that Alex Sinoloa
installed Martinez in the Charlotte area to run his cocaine
business. Gerald Baharona, who testified at trial, was another
member of the conspiracy. Baharona sold nine ounces of cocaine to
a confidential informant on October 13, 2004. Martinez and
Baharona prepared the drugs at an apartment rented by Martinez, and
Baharona gave Martinez the $6000 that the informant paid him for
the drugs.
The informant subsequently arranged to purchase four
kilograms of cocaine. Two kilograms were to be delivered on
October 22, the informant was to pay for all four kilograms on that
- 2 -
day, and the remaining two kilograms were to be delivered later.
Officers arrested Baharona on October 22 as he was driving a white
Ford Explorer to the location where he was to meet the informant.
Inside a secret compartment, officers found two kilograms of
cocaine. There was testimony that, on a rental application for the
apartment out of which the drug business operated, Martinez
identified a white Ford Explorer as one of his vehicles. He had
been seen driving the Explorer, which Baharona used to deliver
drugs, and Baharona testified that both he and Martinez knew how to
operate the secret compartment, whose purpose was to conceal
illegal narcotics.
This evidence is sufficient to support both convictions.
See United States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368, 384-85 (4th Cir.
2001); United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 873 (4th Cir. 1996)
(en banc). With respect to the § 841 conviction, we note that
Martinez had the power to exercise dominion and control over the
vehicle in which the drugs were found. He therefore had
constructive possession of the drugs. See United States v. Blue,
957 F.2d 106, 107 (4th Cir. 1992).
We accordingly affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before us and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -