[D O NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

F O R THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

NOV 22, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

N o . 06-11588

CLERK

N o n - A r g u m e n t Calendar

D . C. Docket No. 05-00093-CR-3-MCR

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANGEL RUBEN CASTILLA,

Defendant-Appellant.

A p p e al from the United States District Court

fo r the Northern District of Florida

(N o v em b er 22, 2006)

B efo re DUBINA, CARNES and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

P E R CURIAM:

A n g el Ruben Castilla appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute and

to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation

o f 21U.S.C. § 846. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

Castilla was indicted along with Roberto Ramirez and two others for co n sp iracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or m o r e of cocaine.1 A t trial, Kendall Brown testified for the government in exchange for a lig h ter sentence in his drug-related conviction. According to Brown, his source for d ru g s was a man from Texas named Chiky, whom Brown knew through Ramirez.

Brown and Castilla had known each other for about three years and were friends.

After a while, Brown realized that Castilla also was involved in selling drugs and ap p ro ach ed Castilla about his supplier. Chiky did not speak English and Brown u sed Castilla as his interpreter to negotiate deals. At times, Castilla would call B ro w n when Chiky was in town. Brown met Chiky at Castilla's house two or th r e e times and Brown would purchase drugs each time. Brown often saw drugs at C a stilla 's house and Brown saw Chiky give Castilla drugs. Brown also observed o th er people at Castilla's house during drug buys.

According to Brown, if Chiky was unavailable, Castilla purchased drugs fro m a man named Coyote. Castilla also arranged for Coyote to sell to Brown, and B r o w n would meet Coyote at Castilla's house. Castilla was present at each tran sactio n and helped count the money.

O k alo o sa County Sheriff's officer Frederick Lithgow testified that he in te rv ie w e d Castilla after Castilla was arrested and Castilla made a voluntary statem en t to police.2 In his statement, Castilla admitted his involvement with o th ers in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine in north Florida. Castilla specifically id en tified a man named Chiky as his supplier. Castilla was able to describe Chiky an d knew Chiky was from Texas. Castilla also admitted acting as Chiky's in te rp r e te r negotiating drug deals with Brown and others in exchange for $500 per tran sactio n . Castilla further admitted that he received 2 ½ kilograms of cocaine to d is tr ib u te . Lithgow was present during a search of a house belonging to a man n a m e d Garcia, also known as "Flocko." At the house, police found cell phones an d drugs paraphernalia.

Officer Corey Aittama was present during the interview and confirmed that C a stilla informed police that Chiky was supplying multi-kilo quantities of cocaine, th a t Castilla distributed drugs and acted as Chiky's translator, and he identified C o yo te as another supplier.

Jairo Ferrera Quintero, who was cooperating with authorities in exchange for a lighter sentence in his drug case, testified that he saw Chiky deliver drugs to C astilla, that he had received drugs directly from Castilla, and that he saw Chiky a n d Castilla exchange drugs and money. According to Quintero, he delivered d r u g s for Castilla on three occasions to repay money that he had borrowed to get an attorney for his brother Mario Quintero.

The government submitted Brown's cell phone as evidence; the phone co n tain ed numbers for Chiky, Coyote, and Castilla. Phone logs showed numerous calls between Brown, Castilla, Chiky, Coyote, Flocko and Quintero.

At the close of the government's case-in-chief, Castilla moved for judgment o f acquittal, which the court denied.

Castilla testified in his own defense, admitting that he knew Coyote, Flocko, Q u in tero , Brown, and Chiky, and that those five men were involved with drugs.

He further admitted that he had translated for Brown and Chiky, but denied it had a n y th in g to do with drug deals. Castilla denied that he told police he was involved w ith drugs or that he was involved in any deals with Brown. Castilla further d en ied dealing drugs with Coyote and using Quintero to sell or deliver drugs. He stated that Quintero and Brown were lying about his involvement. Castilla ex p lain ed that he told police Chiky had given him $500 to buy supplies for a bar-bq u e . He further admitted that he received drugs from Chiky for his own personal u se, but stated that he had received only a few ounces from Chiky over six m o n th s, and not two-and-a-half kilograms as the police had testified. According to Castilla, he was concerned about Chiky's drug dealings and tried to contact n arco tics officers, but was unsuccessful. He could not explain, however, why the p h o n e logs did not show any calls to narcotics officers. According to Castilla, the p o lic e were out to get him and were trying to put him in jail to make him testify ag ain st the main drug distributers.

Castilla renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which the court again d en ied . The jury convicted Castilla, specifically finding that the amount of drugs in v o lv ed was five kilograms or more. The court sentenced him to 169 months im p riso n m en t. Castilla now appeals.

Castilla argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction b ecau se the connection between him and the co-conspirators was tenuous at best an d there was no direct evidence linking him to any agreement to sell drugs. He asserts that Brown and Quintero are unbelievable, and he calls into question the testim o n y of the law officers, challenging their memories of the interview.

We review sufficiency of the evidence claims de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1 3 4 2 , 1345 (11th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Munoz, 430 F.3d 1357, 1367 (1 1 th Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 2305 (2006). This court must decide w h eth er a reasonable juror could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reaso n ab le doubt. Id.

"To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to d is tr ib u te , the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) an illegal ag reem en t existed; (2) the defendant knew of it; and (3) the defendant, with k n o w led g e, voluntarily joined it." United States v. Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1 3 3 3 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. McDowell, 250 F.3d 1354, 1365 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 1 ). The government may prove the existence of the conspiracy and the d efen d an t's participation in it through circumstantial evidence. United States v. M ercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 1999). Although mere presence will not s u p p o r t a conspiracy conviction, it is a factor the jury may consider when d eterm in in g if the defendant was a knowing and intentional participant in the o ffen se. Hernandez, 433 F.3d at 1333.

"[U ]n co rro b o rated testimony of an accomplice may be enough to support a c o n v ic tio n if the testimony is not on its face incredible or otherwise insubstantial." United States v. Garcia, 405 F.3d 1260, 1270 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting United S tates v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528, 1536 (11th Cir. 1986)). This court defers to a ju ry's credibility determination unless it is "unbelievable on its face." Id. (citing U n ite d States v. Rivera, 775 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1985)); see also United S tates v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1268 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that this court is b o u n d by the jury's credibility determinations, and by its rejection of the inferences r ais ed by the defendant); United States v. Glinton, 154 F.3d 1245, 1258 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 8 ). By deciding to testify, a defendant faces the risk that the jury will d is b e lie v e his testimony. United States v. Rudisill, 187 F.3d 1260, 1268 (11th Cir. 1 9 9 9 ).

Here, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The crux of C astilla's testimony is that the government's witnesses were lying and that their te stim o n y was unbelievable. Brown and Quintero both testified that they had seen C astilla with drugs or selling drugs. And Brown testified that Castilla acted as a tran slato r for deals with Chiky and participated in deals with Coyote. Castilla d en ied his participation. The jury, as the factfinder, was free to disbelieve C as tilla's version of the events. Contrary to Castilla's argument, neither Brown's n o r Quintero's testimony is unbelievable on its face. Moreover, the testimony of th e two officers confirmed Castilla's involvement. The jury was free to conclude th a t these witnesses were more credible than Castilla.

A cco rd in g ly, because there was sufficient evidence to support the co n v ictio n , we AFFIRM.

1 Ramirez was acquitted and the other two entered plea agreements.

2 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 458-71, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1619-26, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). The court found that Castilla had been read his rights and had voluntarily made the statement.