UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5079
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PEDRO LOPEZ-AGILAR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00211-8)
Submitted: March 9, 2009 Decided: April 1, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F.
Shappert, United States Attorney, Mark A. Jones, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Lopez-Agilar (“Agilar”) appeals his convictions
following a jury trial for conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846
(2006), and 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C),
(b)(1)(D) (West 1999 & Supp. 2008); and possession with intent
to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), 18
U.S.C. § 2 (2006). Agilar contends the evidence was
insufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. We affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s denial of a
motion, made pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, for judgment of acquittal. United States v.
Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). In conducting such a
review, we are obliged to sustain a guilty verdict if, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the
verdict is supported by substantial evidence. United States v.
Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citing
Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)). This court
has “defined substantial evidence as evidence that a reasonable
finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to
support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt.” Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (internal quotation and
citation omitted); see Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862.
2
With respect to both his convictions, Agilar argues
the evidence was insufficient because it established only that
he drove a car to the site of a drug transaction; there was no
evidence that Agilar handled any drugs; government buy-money was
recovered only from the other occupant of the car; and there was
no evidence Agilar was a party to recorded cell phone
conversations arranging the drug transaction. Our review of the
record leads us to conclude that the evidence was nevertheless
sufficient to convict Agilar of both conspiracy and aiding and
abetting the possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine.
The trial testimony disclosed that Agilar conspired to
distribute methamphetamine, and that he also aided and abetted
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine on May 20,
2005. The cell phone used to arrange the purchase of a pound of
methamphetamine was recovered in the car Agilar drove to the
location where the drugs were sold to a confidential informant.
Recorded conversations from that cell phone, Agilar’s arrival
just prior to the transaction, and the recovery of government
buy-money in the amount of the price quoted by the drug supplier
constitute sufficient evidence of Agilar’s participation in a
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Testimony that it was
not Agilar’s passenger’s voice on the recorded calls further
supports the jury’s conclusion. Although the video surveillance
3
did not show Agilar physically handling the drugs, the
circumstantial evidence supports the jury’s determination that
Agilar and his passenger supplied the drugs sold to the
confidential informant.
Accordingly, we affirm Agilar’s convictions. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4