USA v. Cabrera, et al.

Page 1 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
EDWARD GLEN DEMAPAN,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 25-00005-002
DECISION AND ORDER
DENYING THE MOTIONS
FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
AND NEW TRIAL
Defendant Edward Glen Demapan filed the following motions: (1) Motion for Judgment of
Acquittal, ECF No. 197; and (2) Motion for New Trial, ECF No. 196. For the reasons stated
herein, the motions are DENIED.
I. 	Background
On November 19, 2025, the jury found Defendant Edward Glen Demapan guilty of Count
1, Conspiracy to Distribute Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a)(1), and (b)(1)(A)(viii); and Count 2, Attempted Possession with Intent to Distribute
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii)
and 18 U.S.C. § 2. See ECF No. 193.
On November 25, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motions, seeking a judgment of
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 12

Page 2 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
acquittal and a new trial. See Mots., ECF Nos. 196 and 197. Defendant contends that the
evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction for Counts 1 and 2. The
Government opposed the motions. See Opp’n, ECF No. 205.
II. 	Legal Standard
A. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29
Rule 29 provides that a defendant may move for a judgment of acquittal if the evidence is
insufficient to sustain a conviction. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to
the government, with all reasonable inferences drawn in the government’s favor. United States v.
Niebla-Torres, 847 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2017). In doing so, the court must view the
evidence as a whole and not in isolation. United States v. Stanton, 501 F.3d 1093, 1100 (9th Cir.
2007).
After viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the question
becomes whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The jury’s exclusive
function is to “determine the credibility of the witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts and draw
reasonable inferences from proven facts.” United States v. Nelson, 419 F.2d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.
1969). “Circumstantial evidence and inferences drawn from it may be sufficient to sustain a
conviction.” United States v. Reyes-Alvarado, 963 F.2d 1184, 1188 (9th Cir. 1992). The question
“is not whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis except that of guilt but rather whether the
trier of fact could reasonably arrive at its conclusion.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158,
1165 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). As such, if a rational trier of
fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the motion must
be denied. Id. at 1164-65.
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 12

Page 3 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
B. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33
Rule 33 provides that the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial “if the
interest of justice so requires.” FED. R. CRIM . P. 33(a). A motion for a new trial is “directed to the
discretion of the district judge” and “should be granted only in exceptional cases in which the
evidence preponderates heavily against the verdict.” United States v. Pimentel, 654 F.2d 538,
545 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “The defendant bears the
burden of proving that he is entitled to a new trial under Rule 33, and before ordering a new trial
pursuant to Rule 33, a district court must find that there is a real concern that an innocent person
may have been convicted.” United States v. Halali, No. 14-00627-SI-1, 2017 WL 3232566, at *2
(N.D. Cal. July 28, 2017) (quoting United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458, 475 (2d Cir. 2009)).
III. 	DISCUSSION1
A. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal
Defendant argues that there is no evidence connecting Defendant to the conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine: Defendant has been incarcerated and was obviously unable to
perform any physical act of the conspiracy, whereas the coconspirators are not incarcerated and
had the freedom to do whatever they desired; the coconspirators were the ones who were sending
and receiving packages (the money and drug packages); Defendant did not receive the drug
package nor the money package; and the only Government witness that connects Defendant to
the conspiracy has a questionable past with prior convictions and he has every incentive to lie for
his own benefit. See generally Mot. at 9-15, ECF No. 197.
The court finds these arguments to be without merit. There was evidence presented at trial
that connects Defendant to the conspiracy.
1 Page reference throughout this Order refers to the CM/ECF page numbering system.
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 12

Page 4 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1. 	Count 1: Conspiracy to Distribute Fifty (50) or More Grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
For Defendant to be found guilty, the government must prove each of the following
elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, beginning on or about August 7, 2024, and ending on or about August 26,
2024, there was an agreement between two or more persons to distribute methamphetamine
hydrochloride; and
Second, the defendant joined in the agreement knowing of its purpose and intended
to help accomplish that purpose.
. . .
One becomes a member of a conspiracy by knowingly participating in the unlawful
plan with the intent to advance or further some object or purpose of the conspiracy, even
though the person does not have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. . . . [A]
person does not become a conspirator merely by associating with one or more persons who
are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that a conspiracy exists.
Jury Instr. No. 10, ECF No. 187. Further, the court provided the following instructions on
Conspiracy:
[T]he defendant has, in effect, agreed to participate in the conspiracy if the government
proves each of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, the defendant directly conspired with one or more conspirators to
carry out at least one of the objects of the conspiracy;
Second, the defendant knew or had reason to know that other
conspirators were involved with those with whom the defendant directly
conspired; and
Third, the defendant had reason to believe that whatever benefits the
defendant might get from the conspiracy were probably dependent upon
the success of the entire venture.
It is not a defense that a person’s participation in a conspiracy was minor or for a short
period of time.
Jury Instr. No. 12, ECF No. 187.
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 12

Page 5 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a. 	First Element: Beginning on or about August 7, 2024, and ending
on or about August 26, 2024, there was an agreement between two
or more persons to distribute methamphetamine hydrochloride
In August 2024, a package containing U.S. Currency was sent from Guam to Houston,
Texas. The information contained on the package is as follows: the sender was “See Vivas, 116
Luisa St., Tamuning GU 96913”, and the recipient was “Katherine Newton, 11414 Clearfield
Dr., Houston TX 77044”. Def. Ex. 1-4A. On August 14, 2024, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service
recovered U.S. Currency in the amount of $80,160.00, in said package. Gov’t. Ex. 2-1, 2-2.
Special Agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) Samuel Lawver (“Agent
Lawver”) testified that the package was mailed from Guam to Houston on August 7, 2024. See
also Def. Ex. 1-4A. The recipient’s address (11414 Clearfield Dr., Houston) is Liana Cabrera’s
physical address. Gov’t. Ex. 11-1.
On August 10, 2024, a package containing drugs was sent from Houston, Texas to Guam.
Gov’t. Ex. 3-3. The information contained on the package is as follows: the sender was “April
Saki, 606 Uvalde Rd., Houston TX 77015”, and the recipient was “Seed Vivas, 116 Luisa St.,
Tamuning GU 96913”. Gov’t. Ex. 3-3. The recipient’s address (116 Luisa St., Tamuning) is
Zerxes Viva’s house address. Senior Forensic Chemist for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Kimberlie Ross testified that she examined the drugs and found that it was d-methamphetamine
hydrochloride. The Forensic Laboratory Examination report shows that the d-methamphetamine
hydrochloride had 99% (+/- 3%) purity level and weighed 2855.9 (+/- 2.2 grams) grams. Gov’t.
Ex. 10.
At trial, the Government established that there were at least four players in the conspiracy,
trying to move money and over 2,800 grams of d-methamphetamine hydrochloride between
Guam and Houston, Texas: (1) Zerxes Viva, who received the drug package and delivered it to
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 5 of 12

Page 6 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Allan Bernal (Viva testified to this information as well as the federal law enforcement officers
involved in the controlled delivery); (2) Allan Bernal, who received and opened the drug
package (former Task Force Officer for the U.S. Postal Inspection Service Valerie Pereda and
Task Force Officer for the Drug Enforcement Administration David Elliott testified to this
information); (3) Liana Cabrera, whose stamps.com account can be traced to both the drug and
money packages (see Gov’t. Ex. 11-1, 11-2; Agent Lawver also testified to this information); and
(4) Defendant Demapan, who facilitated the activities between Cabrera, Viva, and Bernal, which
will be discussed supra.
b. Second Element: The defendant joined in the agreement knowing
of its purpose and intended to help accomplish that purpose.
Demapan was the link connecting Cabrera to Viva and Bernal in the charged conspiracy.
As established at trial, Cabrera’s stamps.com account made postage purchases for both the
money and drug packages. See Gov’t. Ex. 11-2. Cabrera had the tracking information, which she
shared with Demapan. See Gov’t. Ex. 12-2, 12-3, 12-9, 12-10. This was also testified to by
Agent Lawver, connecting the phone numbers that Cabrera had been communicating with, with
the cellular phones discovered on Demapan’s person when his prison cell was searched.2 Agent
Lawver also testified that he went through Cabrera’s iCloud account and reviewed the
communications contained therein, and he found that Cabrera did not have any communication
with Bernal or Viva. Thus, there was no way of Bernal or Viva knowing of the drug package
without another person informing them. Demapan, however, had communications with Bernal
and Viva about the package.
Government Exhibit 30-60 shows a photo of a package with a message saying, “It just
went out call me when you can.” Gov’t. Ex. 13-60. The phone numbers associated with this text
2 Law enforcement officers discovered a total of three cellular phones on Demapan’s person: two were in his pocket
(testimony of Correctional Officer Billy Larson), and one was near his groin area (testimony of DEA Special Agent
Dana Walker).
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 6 of 12

Page 7 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
were between Bernal and Demapan. (Testimony of Agent Sawver). The evidence showed that
Demapan communicated with Bernal. Demapan then called Viva to tell him about the package
delivery to his house. Demapan then instructed Viva to call Bernal. Viva made the call, and
Bernal told him where to meet him so that Bernal could get the package from Viva. Viva then
delivered the package to Bernal as instructed. Viva testified to all of this at trial.
When Bernal was picked up by law enforcement officers, Demapan called Viva to ask
what happened during the delivery. See Gov’t. Ex. 8-3 and testimony of Viva. Also, in Cabrera’s
messages, she texted that “[t]hey picked up one of Chelu3 people and I knew something was
wrong[,]” because the drug package sat in the Barrigada post office for four days. Gov’t. Ex. 15-
4, 15-5. The date of that text was on August 22, 2024, which corresponds to the date of the
controlled delivery and when Bernal was detained for questioning. The tracking history of the
drug package also corresponds to the fact that it arrived on August 17 at the Barrigada USPS
Regional Destination Facility, but it was not delivered until four days later, on August 21. See
Gov’t. Ex. 12-9.
Additionally, when Demapan’s prison cell was searched, law enforcement discovered
several items inside Demapan’s prison cell4 including a conversion chart, digital scale, baggies,
and pipes, all of which are associated with the use and distribution of narcotics. (Testimony of
Task Force Officer Adam Grey). Law enforcement officers also found handwritten notes of the
addresses of Viva and Cabrera, the same addresses used to send the money and drug packages.
See Gov’t. Ex. 18-66, 19-37, 19-54.
While Demapan may not have performed the physical acts of sending or receiving the
packages, he coordinated the activities in Houston, Texas and Guam; and between Cabrera and
3 Agent Lawver testified that Demapan was known by his associates as “Chelu”.
4 Guam Police Department Detective Peter Paulino testified that there was one set of bunk bed in Demapan’s prison
cell, and Task Force Officer Grey testified that although the prison cell had a double bunk, the top did not have a
mattress and was being used as a shelf storage. The prison cell was occupied by Demapan alone.
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 7 of 12

Page 8 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Viva and Bernal. Demapan was not just a bystander who happens to be associated with Viva,
Bernal, and Cabrera; or someone who merely knows the existence of the conspiracy. Rather,
Demapan was an active participant of the conspiracy, knowing its purpose and taking a role in
helping accomplish that purpose.
2. Count 2: Attempted Possession with Intent to Distribute Fifty (50)
or More Grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
For Defendant to be found guilty, the government must prove each of the following
elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, the Defendant intended to possess any controlled substance with the
intent to distribute it to another person; and
Second, the defendant did something that was a substantial step toward
committing the crime.
A “substantial step” is conduct that strongly corroborates a defendant’s intent
to commit the crime. To constitute a substantial step, a defendant’s act or actions
must unequivocally demonstrate that the crime will take place unless interrupted by
independent circumstances.
. . .
To “possess with the intent to distribute” means to possess with intent to
deliver or transfer possession of a controlled substance to another person, with or
without any financial interest in the transaction.
Jury Instr. No. 13, ECF No. 187.
The Defendant may also be found guilty if he aided and abetted in the commission of the
offense.
To “aid and abet” means intentionally to help someone else commit a crime.
First, someone else committed Count 2, Attempted Possession with Intent to
Distribute Fifty (50) or More Grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride;
Second, the defendant aided, counseled, commanded, induced, or procured that
person with respect to at least one element of Count 2, Attempted Possession with
Intent to Distribute Fifty (50) or More Grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride;
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 8 of 12

Page 9 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Third, the defendant acted with the intent to facilitate Count 2, Attempted Possession
with Intent to Distribute Fifty (50) or More Grams of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride; and
Fourth, the defendant acted before the crime was completed.
Jury Instr. No. 15, ECF No. 187.
As discussed above, Demapan was the link between Cabrera in Houston, Texas; and Viva
and Bernal in Guam. Demapan took a substantial step and acted with the intent to facilitate the
delivery of the drug package by contacting Viva and instructing him to get in touch with Bernal,
whom Demapan had also communicated with about the drug package. Demapan was in constant
communication with Cabrera as well and obtained the tracking information from her, and he was
actively tracking the status of the shipment. Demapan’s actions all occurred prior to and during
the delivery of the drug package.
3. Viva’s Testimony and Plea Agreement
Demapan argues that Viva’s testimony was the only direct evidence purporting to connect
him to the charged conspiracy. Mot. at 8, ECF No. 197. Additionally, Demapan questions Viva’s
credibility in that Viva has every reason to lie so as to please the Government. Id. In return, the
Government would seek from the court a sentence reduction for Viva under the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Section 5K1.1, or 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), which would remove Viva from the
mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. Id. Demapan also raises Viva’s prior drug-related
convictions and his pretrial release violation, where he only received an admonishment without
any real consequence. Id.
The jury was well aware of Viva’s circumstances—that he will receive benefits and
favored treatment from the government if the government decides that he substantially
cooperated. See Jury Instr. 21, ECF No. 187. The jury was also well aware of the plea agreement.
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 9 of 12

Page 10 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Gov’t. Ex. 20. Defense counsel thoroughly cross examined him about the plea agreement and his
past, including his history of prior drug convictions. The court warned the jury that it “should
consider the extent to which or whether his testimony may have been influenced” by the benefits
and favored treatment he will be receiving from the government and that it “should examine
[Viva’s testimony] with greater caution than that of other witnesses.” Id.
Despite being aware of Viva’s plea agreement and his criminal history, and the fact that the
court warned the jury to examine Viva’s testimony with greater caution, the jury nonetheless
found him to be a credible witness and further found the Government to have proven its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The court will not disturb the jury’s findings as it is within the jury’s
exclusive purview to “determine the credibility of the witnesses, resolve evidentiary conflicts
and draw reasonable inferences from proven facts.” Nelson, 419 F.2d at 1241.
B. Motion for New Trial
Defendant’s motion for a new trial rehashes the same arguments raised in the motion for
judgment of acquittal. See generally Mot., ECF No. 196. Defendant’s main argument in this
instant motion is that the Government’s main witness, Viva, was not credible and has a
questionable past, including multiple prior drug convictions and that he violated his pretrial
release conditions. Mot. at 6-10, ECF No. 196. Additionally, Defendant argues that all evidence
points away from him: the stamps.com is owned by Cabrera, the drug package was received by
Viva and Bernal, neither the drug package nor the money package was addressed to Defendant,
there was no evidence connecting Defendant to the $80,160 money package, and the text
messages from Cabrera rather show that she was giving him orders. Id. at 4-5.
The court finds Defendant’s arguments to be without merit. First, as discussed above, the
jury was presented with all the impeachment information on Viva and the court specifically
instructed the jury to be particularly cautious in weighing Viva’s testimony as a cooperating
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 10 of 12

Page 11 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
defendant. Yet, the jury found Viva credible.
Second, Viva’s testimony was corroborated. The PayTel conversation between Viva and
his incarcerated friend, Richard Espedion, which took place a day after the controlled delivery,
corroborates Viva’s testimony at trial. See Gov’t. Ex. 8. The WhatsApp messages presented
throughout the trial also support Viva’s testimony.
Third, in a conspiracy, each coconspirator typically plays a different role with all of them
working towards the same goal. In this case, as established at trial, Cabrera owned the
stamps.com account where the postage for the money and drug packages was purchased. Viva
and Bernal’s roles were to handle the package that arrived in Guam. Demapan’s role, as
thoroughly discussed above, was to facilitate the activities between Cabrera in Houston, Texas,
and Viva and Bernal in Guam. The government was not required to prove that Demapan took
part in all the activities within the conspiracy. The government was also not required to prove
that Demapan was the leader (Demapan argues that it was Cabrera giving orders to Demapan).
The government was only required to prove that there was an agreement between two or more
persons to distribute methamphetamine hydrochloride and that Defendant joined in the
agreement knowing of its purpose and intended to help accomplish that purpose. See Jury Instr.
10, ECF No. 187. The government has proven that.
Finally, the government was not required to trace the $80,160 in cash to Demapan. As the
government correctly pointed out, Demapan was not charged with money laundering. Opp’n. at
19, ECF No. 205. This is also not a forfeiture proceeding where the government is required to
establish a lexis between the criminal proceeds and the criminal activity.
The court finds that there was sufficient evidence, both direct and circumstantial, for the
jury to find Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on the evidence presented at trial
and as discussed above, Defendant has not met his burden that he is entitled to a new trial under
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 11 of 12

Page 12 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Rule 33. This is not an “exceptional case[ ] in which the evidence preponderates heavily against
the verdict,” Pimentel, 654 F.2d at 545, and that “an innocent person may have been convicted,”
Halali, 2017 WL 3232566, at *2.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the court DENIES the motion for judgment of acquittal and
the motion for new trial.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood
Chief Judge
Dated:Feb 27, 2026
Case 1:25-cr-00005 Document 241 Filed 02/27/26 Page 12 of 12