United States v. Armando Vera-Porras, 612 F. App'x 402

On May 5, 2013 officers found three cell phones hidden in potato chip bags in a common laundry area at the Forrest City FCI; one phone (charged here) was operational and bore a T‑Mobile logo.
Forensic extraction recovered the phone’s memory, including at least 107 deleted texts; 85 texts were to or from a number appearing only on Armando Vera‑Porras’s approved contact list.
The last outgoing text from the phone was sent about one hour before officers found the phone.
Vera‑Porras was tried by jury for possessing a prohibited object in prison under 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2); at the close of the government’s case he moved for judgment of acquittal on two grounds.
He argued the government failed to prove (1) he possessed the phone (actual or constructive possession) and (2) the phone was “used by a user of commercial mobile service.”
The district court denied the judgment of acquittal; the jury convicted and the district court sentenced Vera‑Porras to 4 months, consecutive to his existing 120‑month sentence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Vera‑Porras possessed the phone (actual or constructive)	Evidence was only circumstantial and too weak to tie Vera‑Porras to the phone	Majority of recovered texts were to/from a number only on Vera‑Porras’s approved contacts; he had access to the unsecured area; last text was shortly before discovery	Affirmed: a rational jury could find constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether evidence proved the phone was “used by a user of commercial mobile service” under § 1791	Government needed expert testimony or carrier records to show device was used with commercial mobile service	Phone bore T‑Mobile logo, an onsite text referenced T‑Mobile, phone was operational shortly before discovery — lay evidence sufficed	Affirmed: lay testimony and the phone’s markings supported finding it was used with commercial mobile service

United States v. Garcia, 521 F.3d 898 (describing review standard and viewing facts in the light most favorable to verdict)
United States v. Jenkins, 758 F.3d 1046 (de novo review of sufficiency‑based denial of acquittal)
United States v. Johnson, 639 F.3d 433 (accept reasonable inferences favoring the verdict)
United States v. Ojeda‑Estrada, 577 F.3d 871 (verdict must be upheld if any rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Dobbs, 449 F.3d 904 (lay testimony may suffice to identify an object as a firearm; expert testimony not always required)
United States v. French, 12 F.3d 114 (expert testimony unnecessary where determination is a matter of common sense)