U.S. v. Amaya

Record contained sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction on charge of possession of gun in furtherance of drug crime, even though defendant argued that govt. had failed to present sufficient evidence that gun he carried during controlled drug purchase was real. Former members of defendant’s gang testified that gang members were required to carry real guns for use in rival gang territory, where instant controlled purchase occurred, and undercover office present during controlled drug purchase testified that he was positive that defendant’s gun was real. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting out-of-court statement from non-testifying informant at controlled drug purchase, who indicated shortly after defendant had left premises that defendant had gun, since instant statement did not violate Confrontation Clause, because it was non-testimonial in nature where informant did not make statement with intent to establish past fact. Ct. further rejected defendant’s reasonable doubt claim with respect to his racketeering conviction arising out of gang-related beating of fellow gang members. While defendant argued that he did not participate in said assault that concerned two gang members having their hands smashed for violating gang rules, others testified that defendant, who held high rank within gang, chose weapon and picked assailant to inflict assault, all with intent to enforce gang rules.