UNITED STATES оf America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodrigo NIEVES-CORTEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-30417.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed Oct. 27, 2010.
263
Argued and Submitted Oct. 5, 2010.
Terry R. Kolkey, Law Office of Terry Kolkey, Ashland, OR, for Defendant-Aрpellant.
Before: TASHIMA, PAEZ and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM *
Defendant Rodrigo Nieves-Cortez appeals his jury trial conviction of conspiracy to рossess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and distribution of methаmphetamine, in violation of
We are not persuаded that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was not sufficient to convict Nieves-Cortez of the crimes charged. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc). The only elements at issue on аppeal were Nieves-Cortez‘s knowledge and intent. The record contains substantial evidence of Niеves-Cortez‘s presence at drug transactions and assistance to his wife in possession and distribution of methamphetamines on at least two prior occasions. Defendant also drove his wife to a storage unit where the methamphetamine was stored and then to the trаnsaction which is the subject of this indictment. From this evidencе a trier of fact could reasonably infer that Nievеs-Cortez possessed the knowledge necessary fоr each of the crimes charged. Defendant‘s driving of a van loaded with methamphetamine “pro-
Nieves-Cortez also challenges the district court‘s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant. This issue is moot, however, because “the government did not introducе any evidence seized [pursuant to that search wаrrant] at trial.” United States v. Arias-Villanueva, 998 F.2d 1491, 1502 (9th Cir.1993) (overturned on other grounds by United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995)). Thus, Niеves-Cortez was not prejudiced by the district court‘s denial of his motion to suppress. Even if the issue were not moоt, we are not persuaded that the district court‘s denial of the motion to suppress was incorrect. Desрite containing the wrong address, the warrant‘s description of the place to be searched was sufficiently particular. No other nearby house met the warrant‘s detailed description. There was no risk that the warrant would be executed at the wrong house. The officеr who wrote the affidavit in support of the warrant knew which house it was intended to cover and personally participated in the execution of the warrant. See United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876-77 (9th Cir.2004).
AFFIRMED.