NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-30009
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:16-cr-00067-BLW-2
v.
SERGIO CHAVEZ-VERDUZCO, AKA MEMORANDUM*
Sergio Armando Chavez-Verduzco,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 14, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: O'SCANNLAIN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and EZRA,*** District
Judge.
Sergio Chavez-Verduzco appeals his convictions and sentence following a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
jury trial for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise
(“CCE”), see 21 U.S.C. § 848(a), (c), as well as the district court’s denial of his
motion for acquittal, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.
1. Reviewed de novo and construed in the light most favorable to the
prosecution, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for a rational jury to find
every element of the conspiracy charge beyond a reasonable doubt. See United
States v. Niebla-Torres, 847 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2017); United States v.
Wiggan, 700 F.3d 1204, 1210 (9th Cir. 2012). Based on the testimony of David
Wales and other witnesses, the jury could have concluded beyond a reasonable
doubt that Chavez-Verduzco agreed with some combination of Wales, co-
defendant Sergio Chavez-Macias, and other unindicted individuals to sell
methamphetamine. Indeed, Wales testified that he did exactly that. “It is well
established that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness may be sufficient
to sustain a conviction,” United States v. Katakis, 800 F.3d 1017, 1028 (9th Cir.
2015) (quoting United States v. Dodge, 538 F.2d 770, 783 (8th Cir. 1976)), and we
do not review a jury’s credibility determinations on appeal, United States v.
Endicott, 803 F.2d 506, 515 (9th Cir. 1986). The Government’s additional
evidence of text messages that its expert testified referred to drug transactions
provided further evidence to support the verdict.
2
2. Wales’s testimony and the text messages are likewise sufficient to
support a reasonable jury’s continuing criminal enterprise verdict against Chavez-
Verduzco. The evidence recounted multiple events from which a reasonable jury
could conclude that Chavez-Verduzco had committed at least two predicate
offenses in addition to the conspiracy of which it found him guilty, and that the
other elements of a CCE offense were satisfied. See United States v. Hernandez-
Escarsega, 886 F.2d 1560, 1570-71 (9th Cir. 1989).
3. The district court did not err in finding at sentencing that at least 45
kilograms of methamphetamine were involved in the same course of conduct or
common scheme as the counts on which Chavez-Verduzco was convicted. “[A]
jury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering
conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved
by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157
(1997) (per curiam); see also United States v. Mercado, 474 F.3d 654, 657-58 (9th
Cir. 2007) (reaffirming holding of Watts). Even assuming that the district court
here was required to make its findings by clear and convincing evidence, it did not
commit clear error in concluding that the evidence met that standard. See United
States v. Treadwell, 593 F.3d 990, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010). Finally, the sentence that
the district court imposed on Chavez-Verduzco after considering the relevant
sentencing guidelines and factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, was neither
3
procedurally erroneous nor substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty,
520 F.3d 984, 996 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.1
1
We observe that counsel for Chavez-Verduzco appears to have copied a
significant portion of his brief, verbatim and without citation, from a treatise on
criminal law and drug prosecutions. We are deeply troubled by this conduct and
strongly admonish counsel to include complete and appropriate citations in any
filing to this—or any other—court.
4