United States v. Omar Fuentes Alarcon, 682 F. App'x 556

Omar Fuentes was convicted by a jury of knowingly distributing over 50 grams of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii).
Deputy Hause testified that Fuentes confessed to distributing a pound of methamphetamine on the charged date; the jury credited that testimony.
Fuentes moved for a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 and for a new trial under Rule 33; both motions were denied by the district court.
Key disputes at trial included whether Fuentes invoked his Miranda right to remain silent and whether his statements to Deputy Hause were admissible under Rule 404(b).
The district court admitted Fuentes’s statements to prove quantity, price, and source (not propensity), and defense counsel renewed objections; the court allowed the testimony.
Fuentes also alleged prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal; the court declined to reach ineffective assistance on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction	Fuentes argued evidence insufficient to prove distribution beyond a reasonable doubt	Government relied on Deputy Hause’s testimony and jury credibility findings	Affirmed: Viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, any rational juror could convict (Jackson standard)
Admissibility under Rule 404(b)	Fuentes contended statements were improper propensity evidence	Government said statements proved quantity, price, and source (permitted non‑propensity use)	Affirmed: Statements admissible for non‑propensity purposes (Rule 404(b) scope reviewed de novo)
Alleged prosecutorial misconduct	Fuentes argued prosecutor elicited improper testimony after objections	Government noted district court ruled statements admissible and objections were addressed	Affirmed: No prosecutorial misconduct found on de novo review
Ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal	Fuentes asserted counsel was ineffective at trial	Government argued such claims are generally not resolved on direct appeal absent extraordinary record or obvious failure	Declined to consider: neither exception applied; claim not addressed on direct appeal

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir.) (appellate standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
Melvin, 91 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir.) (Rule 404(b) explanation of non‑propensity uses of prior statements)
DeGeorge, 380 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir.) (de novo review whether evidence falls within Rule 404(b))
Benford, 574 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir.) (explains when ineffective‑assistance claims may be raised on direct appeal)