United States of America v. Elvis Rivera

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2354
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ELVIS RIVERA,
Appellant.
___________
On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands
(D.C. Criminal No. 1-07-cr-00029-001)
District Judge: The Honorable Raymond L. Finch
___________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 4, 2009
BEFORE: McKEE, FUENTES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: December 17, 2009)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
The Government filed a one-count criminal information against Appellant, Elvis
Rivera, charging him with possession with intent to distribute more than five grams of
crack cocaine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(iii). After his initial
trial ended in mistrial, Rivera was tried a second time and found guilty. The District
Court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Rivera appeals, challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence. We apply a deferential standard of review when deciding
whether a jury’s verdict rests on sufficient evidence. We will affirm here because, after
reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that any
rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime charged beyond
a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Diallo, 575 F.3d 252, 256 (3d Cir. 2009).
Rivera was arrested after selling crack cocaine to an undercover United States
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent in St. Croix. As he did before the
District Court, Rivera maintains on appeal that the crack cocaine that he sold to the
undercover agent was different from the cocaine admitted at trial as a Government
exhibit. Interestingly, he does not contest the fact that he sold crack cocaine to the
undercover agent, only that the evidence produced at trial was not the same cocaine he
sold to the DEA officer. He argues that after the agent turned the crack cocaine over to
the drug custodian, it was somehow mingled with other drugs the agent had purchased.
At Rivera’s trial, the undercover agent testified that, after buying crack cocaine
from Rivera, he properly secured the drugs and turned them over to the DEA officer in

-- 2 of 3 --

3
charge of drug custody. The Government also presented testimony that the appropriate
procedures and processes were followed in securing this evidence. Further, a DEA
chemist testified that the drugs were properly analyzed. The DEA chemist also identified
these drugs in court and indicated that they were appropriately sealed and in an
untampered condition. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the
Government, we will affirm Rivera’s conviction. Neither testimony nor physical evidence
suggested any deficiencies in the chain of custody or handling of the drug evidence;
rather, there was testimony regarding the appropriate handling of the physical evidence.
Accordingly, a rational trier of fact could have found the evidence sufficient to convict
Rivera.
We find ample reason why the jury could conclude that the drugs introduced into
evidence were indeed the same ones that Rivera sold to the undercover agent. We will
affirm Rivera’s conviction.

-- 3 of 3 --