United States v. White

── United States v. White ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-5839 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:23-cr-00010-DLC-7 v. MEMORANDUM* JANET DEAN WHITE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 15, 2026** Portland, Oregon Before: OWENS, VANDYKE, and SUNG, Circuit Judges. Janet Dean White appeals from her jury conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances (methamphetamine and fentanyl), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possession * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). with intent to distribute those controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm. 1. White argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that she was a member of the conspiracy. When evaluating a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury could have found that White was involved in a conspiracy with Juan Felipe Vidrio Fuentes, among others. See United States v. Moe, 781 F.3d 1120, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth factors in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conspiracy conviction). For example, multiple witnesses testified that Fuentes provided White with drugs to sell, and White was found with a large amount of drugs shortly after leaving Fuentes’s residence. 2. White argues that the Government did not properly authenticate messages from cell phones seized from a cooperator (Justin Stier) and White herself. Because White did not object in the district court, we review for plain error. 2 24-5839 United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189, 1203 (9th Cir. 2014). “Plain error is ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) that affect[s] substantial rights,’ and ‘(4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Id. (citation omitted). Error is “plain” if it is “clear” or “obvious.” Id. at 1211 (citation omitted). Authentication requires that the proponent “produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is,” such as through testimony of a knowledgeable witness. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), (b)(1). “In other words, the party offering the evidence must make a prima facie showing of authenticity ‘so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity.’” Gadson, 763 F.3d at 1203 (citation omitted). “Once the offering party meets this burden, ‘the prob