United States v. Weng

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 25, 2025
• Docket: 25-1088
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 25-1088 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:24-cr-00011-RVM-1 v. MEMORANDUM* MEIFANG WENG,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the District of Northern Mariana Islands Ramona V. Manglona, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted September 24, 2025 Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands

Before: MURGUIA, Chief Judge, and McKEOWN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

A jury found Meifang Weng (“Weng”) guilty of conspiring to transport, as

well as aiding and abetting the transportation of, a noncitizen who has come to,

entered, or remains in the United States unlawfully under 8 U.S.C. § 1324

(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (v)(I)-(II). After trial, the district court granted Weng’s renewed

motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of her specific

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. intent to further the illegal presence of another non-citizen. The government

appeals from the district court’s judgment.

We have jurisdiction over the government’s appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3731. We review de novo the district court’s decision on a motion for judgment

of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. See United States v. Torralba-Mendia,

784 F.3d 652, 663 (9th Cir. 2015). We reverse.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a criminal

conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and

then determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential

elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Sineneng-Smith,

982 F.3d 766, 776 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158,

1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010)). To convict Weng of conspiracy and aiding and abetting

the transportation of noncitizens, the government needed to prove, inter alia, that

Weng had the specific intent to further the illegal presence of another noncitizen.

See Torralba-Mendia, 784 F.3d at 663; Ninth Circuit Manual of Model Criminal

Jury Instructions 4.1, 7.2, 11.1. A rational trier of fact could have found the

government met its burden.

The government presented evidence at trial that supports the inference that

Weng coordinated between a subgroup of immigrants and Hu Taitano, one of the

smuggling ring’s leaders. Specifically, a Special Agent testified that there were

2 25-1088 four or five calls between Hu Taitano and Weng on the day the subgroup met with

Hu Taitano. The government also introduced a photograph of Weng holding the

subgroup’s deposit money. And the government introduced a video from Weng’s

phone of Hu Taitano counting the subgroup’s deposit money while individuals off-

camera referred to themselves with collective pronouns, noting that “we are all

facing difficulties” and “this represents our good faith,” to which Hu Taitano

responded, “I’m finished with you five.” When asked at oral argument about this

evidence, Weng’s counsel acknowledged that it showed Weng taking a leadership

role within the subgroup.

From Weng’s leadership role in the subgroup, a reasonable juror could infer

Weng’s intent to further the illegal presence of the other noncitizens in the

subgroup. See United States v. Hernandez-Guardado, 228 F.3d 1017, 1023 (9th

Cir. 2000) (“The Government need not prove by direct evidence a defendant's

intent to further the presence of an illegal alien.”).

The district court dismissed this evidence because Weng paid the deposit

only for herself at the subgroup meeting. But this payment for herself does not

negate the reasonable inference of her leadership role and related intent towards

the subgroup.

The government’s remaining arguments are without merit.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

3 25-1088