US v. Pedro Lopez-Agilar, No. 06-5079 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-5079 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PEDRO LOPEZ-AGILAR, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00211-8) Submitted: March 9, 2009 Decided: April 1, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael E. Archenbronn, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL E. ARCHENBRONN, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Mark A. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pedro Lopez-Agilar ( Agilar ) appeals his convictions following a jury trial for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(C), (b)(1)(D) (West 1999 & Supp. 2008); and possession with intent to distribute violation U.S.C. of § 2 methamphetamine 21 U.S.C. (2006). and § 841(a)(1), Agilar aiding and abetting, in (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), 18 contends the insufficient to support the jury s verdicts. We motion, review made de pursuant novo to a district Rule 29 of evidence We affirm. court s the denial Federal Criminal Procedure, for judgment of acquittal. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005). was of Rules a of United States v. In conducting such a review, we are obliged to sustain a guilty verdict if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) United States v. (en banc) Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)). (citing This court has defined substantial evidence as evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Alerre, 430 F.3d at 693 (internal citation omitted); see Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862. 2 quotation and With respect to both his convictions, Agilar argues the evidence was insufficient because it established only that he drove a car to the site of a drug transaction; there was no evidence that Agilar handled any drugs; government buy-money was recovered only from the other occupant of the car; and there was no evidence Agilar was a party to recorded conversations arranging the drug transaction. cell phone Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the evidence was nevertheless sufficient to convict Agilar of both conspiracy and aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The trial testimony disclosed that Agilar conspired to distribute methamphetamine, and that he also aided and abetted possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine on May 20, 2005. The cell phone used to arrange the purchase of a pound of methamphetamine was recovered in the car Agilar drove to the location where the drugs were sold to a confidential informant. Recorded conversations from that cell phone, Agilar s arrival just prior to the transaction, and the recovery of government buy-money in the amount of the price quoted by the drug supplier constitute sufficient evidence of Agilar s participation in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. Testimony that it was not Agilar s passenger s voice on the recorded calls further supports the jury s conclusion. Although the video surveillance 3 did not show Agilar physically handling the drugs, the circumstantial evidence supports the jury s determination that Agilar and his passenger supplied the drugs sold to the confidential informant. Accordingly, dispense with oral we affirm argument Agilar s because the convictions. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
