United States of America v. Aaron Ramirez Espinoza

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AARON RAMIREZ ESPINOZA,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 22-30200
D.C. No.
4:22-cr-00040-BMM-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2023**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GILMAN,*** KOH, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Aaron Espinoza appeals his jury conviction for conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.
* 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 Ronald Lee Gilman, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
OCT 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
§ 846. We review challenges to the sufficiency of evidence de novo. See United
States v. Barragan, 871 F.3d 689, 705 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Sufficient evidence supported Espinoza’s conviction. We “must consider the
evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” and then
“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.’” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1164 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc)
(alteration in original) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
Espinoza argues that statements he made to a co-conspirator, St. Pierre, cannot be
considered because St. Pierre was a government informant when those
conversations occurred. However, there is also evidence showing that Espinoza
engaged in the conspiracy to sell methamphetamine and fentanyl before St. Pierre
became a government informant. Even assuming we may consider only the
evidence that pre-dated St. Pierre working as an informant, that evidence, viewed
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, is sufficient to support the
conviction.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --