United States of America v. SERGIO CHAVEZ-MACIAS, AKA Sergio Armando Chavez-Macias

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SERGIO CHAVEZ-MACIAS, AKA Sergio
Armando Chavez-Macias,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 18-30010
D.C. No.
1:16-cr-00067-BLW-1
MEMORANDUM*
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-Macias appeals his conviction following a jury trial for
* 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.
FILED
MAY 16 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A), 846, and the district court’s denial of his motion for acquittal, see
Fed. R. Crim. P. 29.
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). The jury could have concluded
beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the testimony of David Wales and other
witnesses, that Chavez-Macias agreed with some combination of Wales, co-
defendant Sergio Chavez-Verduzco, and others to sell methamphetamine. Indeed,
Wales testified that Chavez-Macias 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.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --