
    UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Rufino CANDELARIO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-3128-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 10, 2014.
    
      Leo E. Ahern, Law Offices of Leo E. Ahern, New Haven, CT, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Michael E. Runowicz (Edward Chang, on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: GUIDO CALABRESI, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption in this case to conform to the listing of the parties above.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Rufino Candelario appeals from the July 30, 2012 judgment of the District Court convicting him, after a jury trial, of possessing more than 500 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(l)(B)(ii)(II), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Can-delario challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on which the jury convicted. We assume familiarity with the factual and procedural history and the issue on appeal.

We review de novo a challenge to a jury verdict based on sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and we will affirm if “ ‘any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Jones, 393 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir.2004) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), other quotations omitted); United States v. Henry, 325 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir.2003) (citations omitted).

To convict Candelario, the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he “knowingly ha[d] the power and the intention ... to exercise dominion and control over [the 500 grams or more of cocaine], either directly or through others,” and intended to distribute that cocaine. United States v. Navarrete, 113 F.3d 1230 (2d Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). On appeal, Candelario only contests the sufficiency of the evidence that he “possessed” the cocaine.

We conclude that there was more than enough evidence for a rational juror to convict. In particular, on December 18, 2010, police conducted a drug raid on a garage. At the time of the raid, a Jeep owned by Candelario was in the garage, and Candelario was there with his wife, who had arrived in a different car. When the officers searched Candelario, they found three bags of cocaine on his person. An officer testified at trial that Candelario was extremely nervous, particularly when the officers approached the car, and repeatedly asked if his wife could take the Jeep. A search of the Jeep revealed a Gucci shopping bag containing four kilos of cocaine. Candelario’s panicked requests that his -wife be permitted to take the Jeep, which he owned, are sufficient for a jury to find possession in the form of “power and the intention ... to exercise ... control ... either directly or through others.” United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211, 222 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that Candelario’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is meritless.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed Candelario’s arguments on appeal and, for the reasons set out above, we AFFIRM the July 30, 2012 judgment of the District Court. 
      
      . Candelario does not challenge on appeal the actions taken by the police.
     