
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darwin LEONES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 09-10218.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 9, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 18, 2010.
    Louis A. Braceo, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Georgia K. McMillen, Law Office of Georgia K. McMillen, Wailuku Maui, HI, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Darwin Leones appeals his jury conviction for aiding in the use of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking offense, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), on the ground there was insufficient evidence to support that such a drug trafficking offense occurred.

Leones raised the insufficiency of evidence issue for the first time in his reply brief. This court “will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in appellant’s opening brief.” Miller v. Fairchild Indus., Inc., 797 F.2d 727, 738 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(5).

Assuming, arguendo, that the issue is not waived, Leones’ argument is meritless. “The standard of review for determining the sufficiency of the evidence ‘is 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. Inzunza, 580 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)) (emphasis in Jackson). The record is replete with evidence that Leones and his colleagues acquired, possessed and distributed more than enough methamphetamine to establish the factual predicate required for Mr. Leones’ conviction. The parties do not dispute that Leones used a gun in furtherance of this conduct.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     