United States of America v. JUAN NAVA-CALDERON, AKA Juan Nava Calderon

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable Thomas F. Hogan, Senior United States District Judge**
for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN NAVA-CALDERON, AKA Juan
Nava Calderon,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10268
D.C. No. 2:08-cr-00436-ROS-3
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Roslyn O. Silver, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 12, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HOGAN, Senior District
Judge.**
Juan Nava-Calderon appeals his convictions for Conspiracy to Possess
Methamphetamine with the Intent to Distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
FILED
SEP 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

-2-
841(b)(1)(A)(viii), & 846, and Possession of Methamphetamine with Intent to
Distribute, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), after a jury trial. Nava-
Calderon argues there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions. We
affirm the district court.
I.
“The sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction is reviewed de
novo.” United States v. Esquivel-Ortega, 484 F.3d 1221, 1224 (9th Cir. 2007).
This court employs a two-step inquiry for considering a challenge to a conviction
based on the sufficiency of the evidence. United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158,
1164 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). “First, a reviewing court must consider the
evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution.” Id.
“Second, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
the reviewing court must determine whether this evidence, so viewed, is adequate
to allow ‘any rational trier of fact [to find] the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Jackson v.
Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
II.
The evidence at trial was sufficient to support Nava-Calderon’s conviction
for conspiracy to possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. “To

-- 2 of 4 --

-3-
establish a drug conspiracy, the government must prove (1) an agreement to
accomplish an illegal objective; and (2) the intent to commit the underlying
offense.” United States v. Reed, 575 F.3d 900, 923 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The government presented evidence that Nava-Calderon and Ramirez-
Martinez arrived at the scene of a drug deal in a car containing four pounds of
methamphetamine. After arriving, Nava-Calderon proceeded to count money
contained in a suitcase. He then entered codefendant Favela’s house, which the
informant Rivera had never been allowed to enter. Moreover, Rivera testified that
Favela told him that the persons arriving with the drugs “were serious people, that
they had never let him down when they delivered drugs.” Ramirez-Martinez and
Nava-Calderon, by their actions, demonstrated an agreement to possess and sell the
methamphetamine, as well as an intent to do so.
III.
The evidence at trial was also sufficient to support Nava-Calderon’s
conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. “To
sustain a conviction for possession with intent to distribute [methamphetamine],
the government must prove that the defendant (1) knowingly, (2) possessed the

-- 3 of 4 --

-4-
[methamphetamine], (3) with intent to distribute it.” United States v.
Magallon-Jimenez, 219 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 2000).
Again, Nava-Calderon arrived at the scene of a drug deal in a car containing
four pounds of methamphetamine. While his mere presence in the car would not
suffice to show possession with intent to distribute, there is other evidence
demonstrating that he had dominion and control over the methamphetamine. As
mentioned previously, Favela stated that he had dealt with the people arriving in
the car before and that they were “serious people, that they had never let him down
when they delivered drugs.” Moreover, Nava-Calderon counted money in a
suitcase that Favela had retrieved from his house. When the informant attempted
to approach Nava-Calderon while he was counting the money, Ramirez-Martinez
prevented the informant from getting any closer, telling him, “No, no, no, don’t get
any closer. We’re taking care of this. We’re counting right here.” Nava-Calderon
thereafter went inside the house with Favela and Ramirez-Martinez, apparently to
continue counting the money. As stated by the government, “the jury could
reasonably infer that the methamphetamine would not change hands until [Nava-
Calderon] was satisfied with the payment .”
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --