## Facts

- A confidential informant reported he could buy large quantities of methamphetamine from Jorge Preciado, and a controlled meeting was arranged in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
- Officers surveilled three men (Preciado, Edwardo Flores Fitz, and Jose Vega) traveling between hotels and other locations using two vehicles: a Nissan Pathfinder and a Honda Civic.
- At a hotel, a room was registered under an alias; Preciado later called the informant stating he had the agreed quantity of methamphetamine and needed a place to remove it from a hiding place in the Pathfinder.
- Preciado and Fitz drove in the Civic to meet the informant at a Burger King parking lot while Vega stayed with the Pathfinder.
- Officers observed Preciado meet and speak with the informant; Fitz was present, but officers did not hear Fitz speak, and the conversation occurred in English.
- Officers arrested Preciado and Fitz in the Civic and arrested Vega at the hotel; a search of the Pathfinder uncovered about ten pounds of methamphetamine hidden in the gas tank.
- Fitz went to trial (while the co-defendants pleaded guilty) and was convicted of (1) conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and (2) possession with intent to distribute and distribution of methamphetamine.
- The government presented surveillance and seizure evidence, but did not present testimony from the informant or co-defendants and did not show Fitz understood English, knew about the drugs, or had ridden in or accessed the Pathfinder.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Fitz knowingly joined an agreement to distribute methamphetamine.
2. Whether sufficient evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Fitz knowingly possessed methamphetamine with intent to distribute or participated in its distribution.
3. Whether the district court erred in denying a mitigating-role adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 (raised on appeal but not reached if convictions failed).

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed Fitz’s convictions on both counts for insufficient evidence.
- The court held the proof showed, at most, Fitz’s presence and association with admitted conspirators, which could not establish knowing participation in a conspiracy.
- The court also held the evidence did not establish knowing possession, control, or distribution because the drugs were concealed in a different vehicle and no proof tied Fitz to the drugs or their concealment.
- Because the convictions were reversed for insufficient evidence, the court did not address the sentencing claim and directed entry of judgment of acquittal.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of sufficiency examines the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, but a conviction must rest on evidence from which a rational juror could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
- For drug conspiracy, the government must prove a knowing agreement and the defendant’s intentional participation; mere presence at transaction-related locations and association with conspirators is insufficient.
- For possession with intent to distribute and distribution, the government must prove knowing possession (actual or constructive) and, when based on circumstantial proof, evidence must support an inference of knowledge and control rather than speculation.
- Knowledge may not be inferred solely from proximity to participants or travel with them when the record lacks evidence connecting the defendant to planning, communications, contraband, or any role in the transaction.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit vacated Fitz’s drug conspiracy and possession/distribution convictions because the government’s evidence established only that he traveled with and was present near admitted traffickers, without proof that he knowingly agreed to the scheme or knowingly possessed or distributed the methamphetamine concealed in another vehicle.


United States v. Fitz, 317 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2003)