United States v. Juan Rodriguez, No. 06-2437 (8th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Criminal Case - conviction and sentence. Evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; jury credibility assessments will not be disturbed on appeal. Sentence was properly calculated based on jury's finding of drug quantity.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ___________ No. 06-2437 ___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of South Dakota. Juan Rodriguez, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant. * ___________ Submitted: October 17, 2006 Filed: December 5, 2006 ___________ Before MELLOY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, Defendant Juan Rodriguez was convicted of conspiring to distribute in excess of five kilograms of a mixture or substance containing cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 841(a)(1) and 846. The district court1 sentenced him to 135 months imprisonment. His conviction was supported by the testimony of numerous coconspirators. He now argues that his coconspirators were not credible and that their testimony is insufficient to support the conviction. This argument is without merit, and we will not disturb the jury s credibility assessments on appeal. 1 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota. United States v. Hernandez, 301 F.3d 886, 889 (8th Cir. 2002) ( The court should not assess the credibility of the witnesses or weigh the evidence. ). Regarding sentencing, Rodriguez challenges the district court s drug quantity determination as being clearly erroneous. This argument, too, is without merit. The jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy involved over five kilograms of cocaine. The jury s finding was supported by substantial evidence, including coconspirator testimony that placed the drug quantity at an amount substantially greater than five kilograms. At sentencing, the district court was required to determine a drug quantity under the preponderance of the evidence standard, and the district court adopted the five kilogram quantity found by the jury. It is axiomatic that a fact proved beyond a reasonable doubt cannot simultaneously be disproved by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Campos, 362 F.3d 1013, 1016 (8th Cir. 2004). We affirm the judgment of the district court. ______________________________ -2-
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.
