Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Nixai Noraj, also known as Nixai Nora

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
March 21, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-50891
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
NIXAI NORAJ, also known as Nixai Nora
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:06-CR-5-4
--------------------
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nixai Noraj appeals from his conviction of possession of
MDMA (ecstasy) with intent to distribute and aiding and abetting.
He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his
conviction.
The evidence indicated that Chanathasoune Sonesourinhasack
(Chan) solicited Noraj for a lengthy taxi ride from Dallas to
Odessa, Texas, and that Chansavan Sonesourinhasack (Lou) told
Noraj that the purpose of the trip was to deliver drugs. Noraj
drove Chan and Lou from Dallas to Odessa in return for a promised

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-50891
-2-
payment once the drugs were delivered. Noraj was familiar with
ecstasy, having used the drug on four or five occasions, and he
was present when Chan gave Lou ten ecstasy pills from a large bag
of ecstasy pills during the drive to Odessa. Morever, Noraj used
methamphetamine on the trip.
The jury could have inferred from the evidence that Chan
possessed ecstasy with the intent to distribute it. See United
States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d 165, 169 (5th Cir. 1999). The jury
could have inferred from the evidence that Noraj associated
himself with Chan’s drug-trafficking venture and that he
participated in the venture and sought to make it succeed by
driving Chan and Lou to Odessa in return for the promised
payment. See United States v. Pearson, 667 F.2d 12, 14 (5th Cir.
1982). The evidence was sufficient to support Noraj’s
conviction. See United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 543
(5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --