US v. Reymundo Rodriguez, No. 08-4018 (4th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4018 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. REYMUNDO MONGE RODRIGUEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00004-LHT-1) Submitted: November 19, 2008 Decided: December 9, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sue Genrich Berry, BOWEN AND BERRY, PLLC, Wilmington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Mark A. Jones, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: On March 9, 2006, a jury convicted Reymundo Monge Rodriguez of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, (2006) (Count in violation 1); of possession 21 U.S.C. with §§ 841(a)(1), intent to 846 distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 2); possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) (2006) (Count 3); and possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (2006) (Count 4). Rodriguez was sentenced to 1 235 months imprisonment on Counts and 2; 120 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with the term imposed for Counts 1 and 2, on Count 3; and sixty months imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the term imposed by Counts 1, 2, and 3, on Count 4; for a total of 295 months imprisonment. Rodriguez first contends that the Government s evidence at trial was insufficient to prove the existence of a conspiracy between Rodriguez and any other person to possess methamphetamine. A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden, United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997), and a decision [to reverse for insufficient evidence] will be confined to cases where the prosecution s failure is clear, Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 17 (1978) (footnote omitted). 2 A jury s verdict must be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support (1942). it. Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 In determining whether the evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, and inquire whether there is 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. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862- 63 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not review the credibility of the witnesses and assume[s] that the jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the government. United States v. Foster, 507 F.3d 233, 245 (4th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1690 (2008). At trial, methamphetamine found the Government among presented Rodriguez s evidence belongings of during a search of his room, as well as other circumstantial evidence linking Rodriguez to the conspiracy. in the house where Rodriguez and A search of a laundry room others lived yielded more methamphetamine and drug distribution paraphernalia. Probative evidence and linked Rodriguez distribution paraphernalia. testimony of methamphetamine an and to this drug Finally, the Government offered the individual been methamphetamine who present 3 had for both the purchased purchase of methamphetamine from Rodriguez or his associates at this house several times a week during a seven month period. Though Rodriguez testified that the drugs found were not his, and that he was not review the resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government. See Foster, was credibility 507 part of of the conspiracy, and witnesses F.3d at we the 245. assume We do not jury therefore conclude there sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy conviction. Rodriguez next contends his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to file motions to suppress the evidence seized from Rodriguez s bedroom and inculpatory statements made by Rodriguez after his arrest. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are generally not cognizable on direct appeal. United Rather, States to v. allow King, for 119 F.3d adequate 290, 295 development (4th of Cir. the See 1997). record, a defendant must bring his claim in a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. See id.; United States v. Hoyle, 33 F.3d 415, 418 (4th Cir. 1994). exists when assistance. the record An exception to this general rule conclusively record ineffective See United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999); King, 119 F.3d at 295. the establishes does not conclusively We find that, because establish that Rodriguez s Fourth Amendment claims were meritorious or that his counsel was 4 ineffective by failing to raise them, Rodriguez s ineffective assistance claims are not cognizable on direct appeal. Accordingly, sentence. legal before affirm Rodriguez s convictions and We dispense with oral argument because the facts and conclusions the we court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
