U.S. v. Mora
| Decision Date | 30 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1353,87-1353 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Olivia Baez MORA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Page 76
v.
Olivia Baez MORA, Defendant-Appellant.
Ninth Circuit.
Decided May 30, 1989.
Page 77
John D. Lyons, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Victor Palacios, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before WALLACE, TANG and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges.
TANG, Circuit Judge:
Mora appeals her convictions following jury trial for the offenses of importing and possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 952(a) and 841(a)(1) respectively. Mora argues that there was insufficient evidence of her knowledge and intent to support the convictions, and that her sentencing constituted multiple punishment because the government used the same evidence to prove both importation and possession with intent to distribute. We affirm.
Background
On the morning of July 5, 1987, Mora arrived at San Francisco International Airport on Mexicana Airlines. Customs officers requested Mora's passport and customs declaration. Mora was sent to a secondary inspection station because her passport reflected numerous trips during a short period of time.
Upon examination, a customs officer discovered a package wrapped in black tape in the bottom of Mora's tightly packed bag of baby items. The package contained 387.6 grams of 25.1% tar heroin.
Discussion
Sufficiency of Evidence
Although Mora moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the government's case, her counsel neglected to renew the motion at the close of evidence. Hence Mora waived the benefit of the motion. United States v. Patton, 771 F.2d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Ochoa-Torres, 626 F.2d 689, 691 (9th Cir.1980); Beckett v. United States, 379 F.2d 863, 864 (9th Cir.1967) (per curiam). Nonetheless, we may review the sufficiency of evidence despite an unrenewed motion for acquittal to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice or for plain error. Patton, 771 F.2d at 1243; Ochoa-Torres, 626 F.2d at 691; United States v. Larson, 507 F.2d 385, 387 (9th Cir.1974) (per curiam).
To sustain a conviction for possession with intent to distribute heroin, the government must prove that the defendant (1) knowingly (2) possessed the heroin (3) with intent to distribute it. 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1); see also United States v. Walitwarangkul, 808 F.2d 1352, 1353, cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1023, 107 S.Ct. 1909, 95 L.Ed.2d 515 (1981). There was no plain error or miscarriage of justice here. Mora had actual possession of a baby bag containing a substantial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Avila
...A failure to object to the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of trial waives the issue on appeal. Id. at 1098; United States v. Mora, 876 F.2d 76, 77 (9th Cir.1989). Where such a waiver has occurred, we nonetheless review the sufficiency of the evidence under the less stringent plain......
-
U.S. v. Conkins
...22. Because Barragan did not renew his Rule 29 motion at the close of evidence, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Mora, 876 F.2d 76, 77 (9th Cir.1989). There is ample evidence to show that Alberto Barragan participated in a conspiracy to import and distribute marijuana. I......
-
U.S. v. Thibault-Lemke, THIBAULT-LEMK
...moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of evidence, however, a more stringent "plain error" standard applies. United States v. Mora, 876 F.2d 76, 77 (9th Cir.1989). Lemke moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the government's case, but did not renew his motion at the close......
-
U.S. v. Stauffer
...evidence. The court's review of this issue is proper only to avoid a manifest miscarriage of justice or plain error. United States v. Mora, 876 F.2d 76, 77 (9th Cir.1989). B. "Extension of Stauffer was convicted under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 894(a) 1 for conspiracy to use extortionate means to colle......