United States v. Juan Jose Padilla

25 F. App'x 495
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 6, 2002
Docket01-2998
StatusUnpublished

This text of 25 F. App'x 495 (United States v. Juan Jose Padilla) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Juan Jose Padilla, 25 F. App'x 495 (8th Cir. 2002).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A jury found Juan Jose Padilla guilty of conspiring to distribute at least 50 but less than 500 grams of methamphetamine. The district court 1 sentenced him to 78 months in prison and five years supervised release. Padilla appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the denial of his request for a downward departure. We affirm.

At trial, two witnesses testified that Padilla sold them resale quantities of methamphetamine, and introduced one of them to other methamphetamine sources. Another witness testified that Padilla and an alleged conspirator provided a reseller with methamphetamine which was stored for later distribution. The jurors were free to accept or reject any witness’s testimony in whole or in part. See United States v. One Star, 979 F.2d 1319, 1321 (8th Cir.1992). Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences, see United States v. Robinson, 217 F.3d 560, 564 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 999, 121 S.Ct. 497, 148 L.Ed.2d 468 (2000), we conclude the evidence supports Padilla’s conspiracy conviction. See United States v. Miller, 91 F.3d 1160, 1162 (8th Cir.1996) (evidence of multiple sales of resale quantities of drugs is sufficient to make submissible case of conspiracy to distribute); United States v. Dugan, 238 F.3d 1041, 1044-45 (8th Cir. 2001) (appellate court does not reweigh evidence or judge credibility of witnesses).

The district court’s discretionary decision to deny Padilla’s request to depart downward is unreviewable. See United States v. Saelee, 123 F.3d 1024, 1025 (8th Cir.1997). Accordingly, we affirm and deny Padilla’s pending motion for new counsel.

A true copy.

1

. The HONORABLE RICHARD G. KOPF, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Roy Bruno One Star
979 F.2d 1319 (Eighth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. James Alfred Miller
91 F.3d 1160 (Eighth Circuit, 1996)
United States v. Lou Jiam Saelee
123 F.3d 1024 (Eighth Circuit, 1997)
United States v. Donald Lee Dugan
238 F.3d 1041 (Eighth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 F. App'x 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-juan-jose-padilla-ca8-2002.