IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 95-20783
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERNESTO URIBE; CARLOS ANTONIO LUJAN;
HUGO A MORA-MEDRANO; EUGENIO AREVALO JR
Defendants-Appellants.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
November 20, 1997
Before KING and JONES, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL,* District
Judge.
PER CURIAM:**
Defendants-appellants Ernesto Uribe, Carlos Antonio Lujan,
Hugo A. Mora-Medrano, and Eugenio Arevalo, Jr. were convicted of
several violations of federal drug laws after a lengthy jury
trial. Raising various claims, each defendant appeals his
conviction; in addition, Arevalo and Uribe appeal their
*
District Judge of the Northern District of Texas,
sitting by designation.
**
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
sentences. We affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction
and sentence as to each defendant-appellant.
I. FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This appeal involves a drug smuggling conspiracy, the
members of which transported massive amounts of cocaine from
Colombia to the United States by way of Mexico. In a jury trial
lasting thirty-three days, five defendants were jointly tried;
four of those defendants now appeal.1
On March 26, 1994, acting on a tip, Drug Enforcement Agency
(“DEA”) agents began surveillance on a van parked in front of a
shopping center in north Houston. The agents observed Carlos
Peña get into the van and then followed him to a house in Conroe,
Texas. Peña drove the van into the garage and remained there for
approximately thirty minutes. He then drove the van to another
shopping center parking lot in The Woodlands, Texas, and entered
a restaurant. Another man got into the van and drove it away.
Surveillance officers stopped the van in Pasadena, Texas and
discovered that it contained thirty boxes filled with over 800
kilograms of cocaine.
Later that day, officers arrested Peña at the Conroe house,
and he agreed to cooperate with the government.2 Under the
1
This court granted defendant-appellant Joel Chavez-
Quezada’s motion to dismiss his appeal on October 23, 1996.
2
During the course of his cooperation, Peña fled. He
remained a fugitive at the time of trial.
2
direction of the DEA, Peña had conversations with other
participants in the conspiracy, including defendant-appellant
Ernesto Uribe. Peña consented to the DEA’s recording these
conversations. Peña also informed the DEA that a 2500 kilogram
load of cocaine was expected to arrive at the Conroe house on
April 9. The DEA therefore set up surveillance cameras in the
garage of the Conroe house.
In the late afternoon of April 9, John Mason arrived at the
Conroe house driving a recreational vehicle. On the surveillance
videotape, Peña and Mason were observed unloading approximately
125 boxes of cocaine from the recreational vehicle into the
garage. The next day, Peña loaded some of the boxes into a van
that was in the garage and drove the van to a shopping center in
The Woodlands. Jose Davila then drove the van to a house in
Houston. When the van was later searched, it was found to be
empty.
On April 11, agents observed Davila driving a small blue
pickup truck with a camper on it from the garage of the Houston
house to a McDonald’s restaurant. Davila went into the
McDonald’s. Approximately an hour to an hour and a half later,
defendant-appellant Eugenio Arevalo, Jr. arrived in a taxi and
entered the McDonald’s. Arevalo returned to the parking lot
approximately five minutes later and drove away in the blue
pickup truck that Davila had driven from the Houston house.
Agents pursued Arevalo and arrested him near the McDonald’s.
3
Their search revealed seventeen boxes filled with 340.7 kilograms
of cocaine.
Meanwhile, on April 10, a DEA agent followed Mason on an
airplane from Houston to El Paso. Upon arriving in El Paso,
Mason went to a Quality Inn. Defendant-appellant Hugo A. Mora-
Medrano later picked Mason up at the Quality Inn, but agents
observed no further drug activity. The next day, Rodrigo Herrera
picked Mason up at the Quality Inn. After Mason and Herrera met
Mora-Medrano at a restaurant, Herrera took Mason to an El Paso
house. At the house, Mason and others loaded 2400 kilograms of
cocaine into a recreational vehicle.
Mason, Mora-Medrano, and defendant-appellant Carlos Antonio
Lujan left El Paso in a three-vehicle convoy. Mora-Medrano drove
the lead vehicle, Mason drove the recreational vehicle, and Lujan
followed in another vehicle. Law enforcement agents followed the
caravan for approximately forty miles before they stopped and
arrested the suspects in Hatch, New Mexico. Uribe, Herrera, and
Jose Chavez-Quezada, the leader of the conspiracy, were also
arrested on April 11.3 On November 14, 1994, Uribe, Lujan, Mora-
Medrano, Arevalo, and four other defendants were named in a
seven-count superseding indictment by a federal grand jury.4
3
Agents arrested Uribe at Houston Intercontinental
Airport as he was attempting to leave the city. Herrera and
Chavez-Quezada were arrested in El Paso.
4
Count One charged all of the defendants with conspiracy
to possess with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms
4
Much of the direct evidence that the government presented at
trial as to the extent of the conspiracy prior to March 1994
involved the testimony of the cooperating co-defendants Mason and
Herrera. Their testimony established that Chavez-Quezada was the
leader of a vast narcotics organization headquartered in Juarez,
Mexico. Herrera was in charge of distribution and arranged the
transportation of the cocaine at Chavez-Quezada’s direction.
Herrera testified extensively about the start of his
association with Chavez-Quezada. He testified that he began
arranging cocaine transportation for Chavez-Quezada in May 1991
and that Mora-Medrano was involved in the conspiracy from that
time forward. Herrera later recruited John Mason to join the
conspiracy. The remainder of his testimony corroborated Mason’s
testimony.
Mason testified that he participated in numerous cocaine
of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and
841(b)(1)(A). Count Two charged Uribe, Mora-Medrano, Lujan, and
three other defendants with aiding and abetting and with
possession with intent to distribute in excess of five kilograms
of cocaine on March 15, 1994 in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Counts Three,
Five, and Seven charged Uribe with distribution of cocaine on
March 26, April 10, and April 11, 1994 in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count Four
charged Uribe, Mora-Medrano, Lujan and one other defendant with
aiding and abetting and with possession with intent to distribute
in excess of five kilograms of cocaine on April 9, 1994 in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C.
§ 2. Count Six charged Arevalo with possession with intent to
distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine on April 11,
1994 in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 18
U.S.C. § 2.
5
transportation trips between the summer of 1993 and his arrest in
April 1994. His job consisted of picking up the loads of cocaine
in El Paso and delivering them to Houston, Chicago, or Los
Angeles. Each load consisted of anywhere from 800 to 2400
kilograms of cocaine that was transported in a recreational
vehicle either purchased or rented by Mason. Mora-Medrano
accompanied Mason on each of these trips. According to Mason,
Mora-Medrano’s job was to drive the lead vehicle and inform Mason
of any obstacles that might interfere with his delivery of the
cocaine to the destination city. Mason also testified that Lujan
joined the conspiracy for the last three trips, sometimes
accompanying Mora-Medrano in the lead car and sometimes driving
the car that followed the recreational vehicle.
The jury convicted Uribe, Lujan, and Mora-Medrano on all
counts. Arevalo was acquitted on Count One but was convicted on
Count Six.
II. DISCUSSION
Each defendant-appellant appeals several aspects of his
conviction. First, Arevalo claims that the district court erred
in refusing to suppress evidence seized during his arrest.
Second, Mora-Medrano challenges the district court’s decision to
excuse Venireman #12 based on the government’s challenge for
cause. Third, Uribe asserts that the district court erred in
admitting tape recorded statements made by Peña during one of
6
Uribe’s conversations with him. Fourth, Arevalo argues that the
district court erred in giving the jury a “deliberate
indifference” instruction and in using the term “real doubt” in
its definition of reasonable doubt. Fifth, Mora-Medrano
challenges the district court’s refusal to grant him a mistrial
based on a comment made by the prosecutor. Sixth, Mora-Medrano
and Lujan argue that they were entitled to a new trial because
extraneous material was taken into the jury room during
deliberations. Seventh, Uribe, Lujan, and Arevalo each claims
that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support
his conviction. Finally, Arevalo and Uribe appeal the sentences
imposed upon them by the district court. We address each of
these issues in turn.
A. Suppression of Evidence
Arevalo argues that the district court erred in dismissing
his motion to suppress the evidence seized from the blue pickup
truck that he was driving when he was arrested. He claims that
the officers lacked probable cause as required for a warrantless
arrest and that the arrest and the incident search were therefore
unlawful.
A warrantless arrest requires probable cause, which exists
“when the totality of facts and circumstances within a police
officer’s knowledge at the moment of arrest are sufficient for a
reasonable person to conclude that the suspect had committed or
7
was committing an offense.” United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d
510, 512 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 240 (1996).
Absent clear error, we will not disturb the factual findings
underlying the district court’s determination that probable cause
existed. Id. However, the ultimate determination of whether
probable cause existed is a question of law that we review de
novo. Id. We have reviewed the testimony presented at the
suppression hearing and find that probable cause existed to
justify the arrest of Arevalo and the search of the blue pickup
truck.
B. Excusal of Venireman #12 for Cause
Mora-Medrano argues that the district court erred by
granting the government’s challenge for cause to Venireman #12.
During voir dire, the government asked the prospective jurors
whether they could fairly listen to and evaluate the testimony of
a witness who had pled guilty and agreed to cooperate with the
government. Despite focused attempts by both defense counsel and
the district court to rehabilitate Venireman #12, he maintained
that he would be unable to keep an open mind about the testimony
of such a witness.
“We review the district court’s ruling as to juror
impartiality only for manifest abuse of discretion.” United
States v. Munoz, 15 F.3d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1994). Having
reviewed the record, we find that the district court did not
8
manifestly abuse its discretion in granting the government’s
challenge for cause as to Venireman #12.
C. Evidentiary Ruling
Uribe asserts that the district court erred in admitting,
over his objections, tape recorded statements made by Peña during
Uribe’s conversations with him. He claims that Peña’s statements
on the tapes were more prejudicial than probative and therefore
should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. He
further argues that the admission of out of court statements made
by Peña, who was not available at trial and therefore was not
subject to cross examination, led to a confusion of the issues
and created the serious potential that the jury was misled. We
disagree.
A district court has broad discretion to assess
admissibility under Rule 403, and we will overturn its
determination only where it has abused that discretion. United
States v. Morris, 79 F.3d 409, 412 (5th Cir. 1996). The district
court explicitly rejected Uribe’s claim that the statements were
more prejudicial than probative and created a serious possibility
of jury confusion. In admitting the statements, the district
court relied on United States v. Gutierrez-Chavez, 842 F.2d 77
(5th Cir. 1988). In Gutierrez-Chavez, this court held that
statements taken from tape-recorded conversations between a
defendant and a third-party co-defendant are admissible “for the
9
limited purpose of putting the responses of the appellant in
context and making them ‘intelligible to the jury and
recognizable as admissions.’” Id. at 81 (quoting United States
v. Lemonakis, 485 F.2d 941, 948 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). The district
court’s admission of the statements made by Peña on that basis
was not an abuse of discretion.
D. Jury Instructions
Arevalo appeals two aspects of the jury charge. In
reviewing a challenge to jury instructions, we must determine
“‘whether the court’s charge, as a whole, is a correct statement
of the law and whether it clearly instructs jurors as to the
principles of law applicable to the factual issues confronting
them.’” United States v. Gray, 105 F.3d 956, 967 (5th Cir.)
(quoting United States v. August, 835 F.2d 76, 77 (5th Cir.
1987)), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1856 (1997).
Arevalo first argues that the district court erred in giving
the jury a “deliberate ignorance” instruction with respect to the
charges against him. He claims that no evidence was presented at
trial that could support the inference that he wilfully blinded
himself to the fact that he was involved in a drug transaction.
In response, the government argues that the facts surrounding
Arevalo’s picking up the truck at the McDonald’s before his
arrest support an inference that he was subjectively aware of a
high probability of the existence of illegal conduct and
10
purposely contrived to avoid learning of it.
In determining whether a deliberate ignorance instruction
can be given, this court employs a two part test. “‘The evidence
must show that: (1) the defendant was subjectively aware of a
high probability of the existence of the illegal conduct; and (2)
the defendant purposely contrived to avoid learning of the
illegal conduct.’” United States v. Faulkner, 17 F.3d 745, 766
(5th Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Ojebode, 957 F.2d 1218,
1229 (5th Cir. 1992)). In order to satisfy this test, the
government need not necessarily prove that the defendant engaged
in affirmative acts in order to avoid knowledge. Id. “[I]n some
cases the likelihood of criminal wrongdoing is so high, and the
circumstance surrounding a defendant’s activities and cohorts are
so suspicious, that a failure to conduct further inquiry or
inspection can justify the inclusion of the deliberate ignorance
instruction.” Id. Viewing the evidence in the record in the
light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, see id. at 766 n.31,
we cannot say that including a deliberate ignorance instruction
constituted error on the part of the district court.
Second, Arevalo argues that the district court’s use of the
term “real doubt” in its definition of reasonable doubt was
improper and created a likelihood that the jury was misled and
rendered an improper verdict.5 This argument lacks merit. Other
5
The instruction given to the jury by the district court
read as follows:
11
than the addition of the word “real,” the charge that the
district court gave to the jury follows the Fifth Circuit Pattern
Jury Instructions. Moreover, this circuit and other circuits
have approved of the use of the term “real doubt” to define
“reasonable doubt.” See United States v. Alonzo, 681 F.2d 997,
1002 (5th Cir. 1982); see also, e.g., United States v. Oreto, 37
F.3d 739, 753 (1st Cir. 1994). The district court did not err in
including the term “real doubt” in its definition of reasonable
doubt.
E. Denial of Motion for a Mistrial
Mora-Medrano claims that the district court erred by
refusing to grant his motion for a mistrial based on the
following comment that was made by the prosecutor:
This idea of when they brought character witnesses to
testify to the good character of some of the
defendants, and that we could have--it opened the door
to bring in witnesses to say they’re bad people, the
only problem with that is the only people we could
bring in to testify to that are people that are in the
same drug business as they are.
At trial, the district court sustained the defense’s objection to
this comment and admonished the jury to disregard it.
Nevertheless, the district court denied the defense’s motion for
“A reasonable doubt” is a real doubt, based upon
reason and common sense, after a careful and impartial
consideration of all the evidence in the case.
“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt” is proof of such
a convincing character that you would be willing to
rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most
important of your own affairs.
12
a mistrial, both at the time of the comment and when the issue
was later revisited, stating that it had given the jury a “strong
admonition to disregard” the comment and that, “in the context of
all of the instructions that the jury has been given, and the
specific response made during the argument to [the] objection at
the time it was raised, . . . [the rights] of all the defendants
in this case have been properly protected.”
The district court is in the best position to determine
whether it is necessary to grant a mistrial on the basis of
alleged prosecutorial misconduct, and “‘[a] criminal conviction
is not to be lightly overturned on the basis of a prosecutor’s
comments standing alone.’” United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219,
234 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Lowenberg, 853 F.2d
295, 302 (5th Cir. 1988)). We review a district court’s ruling
on a motion for a mistrial for abuse of discretion. Id.
Improper prosecutorial remarks constitute reversible error only
if they “cast serious doubt on the jury’s verdict.” United
States v. Bustamante, 45 F.3d 933, 946 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
116 S. Ct. 473 (1995). In making this determination, this court
considers three factors: “(1) the likelihood and degree that the
jury was prejudiced by the remarks; (2) the effectiveness of any
cautionary instructions given by the court; and (3) the strength
of the legitimate evidence of the defendant’s guilt.” Id.
In this case, the prosecutor’s statement does not cast
serious doubt on the correctness of the jury’s verdict. The
13
comment was an isolated one and the district court sustained the
defense’s objection to it and promptly admonished the jury to
disregard it. In addition, the government presented strong
evidence of Mora-Medrano’s guilt, including the corroborated
testimony of both Herrera and Mason and the fact that when
arrested he was driving the lead vehicle in the convoy that was
transporting the cocaine. We therefore find that the district
court did not err in denying Mora-Medrano’s motion for a
mistrial.
F. Denial of Motions for a New Trial
After the jury vacated the jury deliberation room, the
parties discovered several extraneous items that had been marked
as government exhibits but had not been admitted into evidence.
The items included National rental car records pertaining to
Chavez-Quezada, an Avis rental car record for Uribe, a Dollar
rental car record for Uribe, and D.T.C. Travel Agency records
showing one reservation for Mora-Medrano and ten reservations for
Herrera. Handwritten on the travel agency records were the
words, “No invoices listed for Velasco/Ismael.” In addition, the
parties found sixteen pages of Continental Airlines records that
included documentation of a reservation for two people under
“Lujan/Carlos/A” on an April 9, 1994 flight from Houston to El
Paso.
Chavez-Quezada filed a motion for new trial based on the
14
presence of unauthorized material in the jury room during
deliberations. The district court permitted Lujan to adopt
Chavez-Quezada’s motion for new trial in lieu of filing his own.
Mora-Medrano filed his own motion for new trial on the same
basis.
At the hearing on the defendants’ motions, Lujan claimed
that all of the extraneous material prejudiced him, and he argued
specifically that the Continental Airlines records were
prejudicial because they tended to discredit his theory that
Velasco and another individual were on the April 9, 1994 airplane
flight to El Paso rather than him. Mora-Medrano’s motion claimed
that the travel agency records listing prepaid tickets for him
and for Herrera linked him with alleged co-conspirators Herrera
and Velasco. He argued that this exhibit could have influenced
the jury and supplied the corroboration the jury might have felt
they needed to convict him.
The district court denied the motions for new trial, noting
that before jury deliberations began it had repeatedly instructed
the attorneys for both sides to review the exhibits carefully to
ensure that only the admitted exhibits were sent to the jury
room. The district court therefore concluded that defense
counsel’s failure to effectively review the documents after
repeated instructions to do so constituted waiver by failure to
exercise due diligence. In the alternative, the court held that
even if no waiver occurred, the extraneous materials did not
15
affect the verdict because there was sufficient evidence of the
defendants’ guilt to make the extraneous material harmless as a
matter of law.6
Absent an abuse of discretion, we will not overturn a
district court’s ruling on a motion for new trial on the ground
that extrinsic material prejudiced the defendants. United States
v. Sanchez-Sotelo, 8 F.3d 202, 212 (5th Cir. 1993). When
extraneous material is found in the jury room, the district court
must inquire into how it came to be there, whether the jurors
have seen it, and whether there is a reasonable possibility that
it influenced the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Luffred,
911 F.2d 1011, 1015 n.3 (5th Cir. 1990). “[A] defendant is
entitled to a new trial when extrinsic evidence is introduced
into the jury room ‘unless there is no reasonable possibility
that the jury’s verdict was influenced by the material that
improperly came before it.’” Id. at 1014 (quoting Llewellyn v.
Stynchombe, 609 F.2d 194, 195 (5th Cir. 1980)). Factors that are
relevant to this determination include “the content of the
extrinsic material, the manner in which it came to the jury’s
attention, and the weight of the evidence against the defendant.”
Id. There is a rebuttable presumption that extraneous material
is prejudicial to the defendant, and the government bears the
6
For purposes of this motion, the district court assumed
that the jury “was exposed to and considered the materials at
issue.”
16
burden of proving harmlessness. Id. However, extraneous
material that is cumulative of properly admitted evidence is not
prejudicial. Llewellyn, 609 F.2d at 196.
(1) Mora-Medrano
Mora-Medrano argues that he was prejudiced by the extrinsic
material because it corroborated “the heavily attacked testimony
of Mason and Herrera, co-operating co-defendants whose
credibility had been seriously damaged otherwise.” At the
hearing below, he specifically argued that the D.T.C. Travel
records prejudiced him because they indicated that he had
purchased a pre-paid airline ticket for travel on January 10,
1994 and thereby corroborated Herrera’s testimony regarding his
actions on that date. In addition, he contended that the
handwritten notation regarding co-defendant Velasco served to
associate him with Velasco.
At trial, the government introduced a significant amount of
evidence which is relevant to this issue. The testimony of Mason
and Herrera indicated that Mora drove the lead vehicle in each
drug transportation trip. Hotel records corroborated this
testimony by indicating that Mora-Medrano was in Houston on the
dates that Mason and Herrera testified drug transportation trips
arrived there. In addition, officers observed Mora-Medrano
meeting with Herrera and Mason in El Paso just prior to Herrera
and Mason going to the El Paso house. Finally, Mora-Medrano was
17
arrested in Hatch, New Mexico while driving the lead vehicle in
the transportation convoy. Given the significant amount of
evidence indicating that Mora-Medrano was deeply involved in the
conspiracy, we conclude that the district court’s determination
that the jury’s consideration of the travel agency document was
harmless did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
(2) Lujan
Lujan argues on appeal that all of the extraneous material
prejudiced him because “the documents tended to link Mr. Lujan to
Herrera through an association with Mora[-Medrano].” The
government responds that the only item that could possibly have
prejudiced Lujan was the Continental Airlines record that showed
a reservation for two people in his name on an April 9, 1994
flight from Houston to El Paso.
When the jury receives extrinsic evidence that “links the
defendant to the offense with which he is charged or impeaches
the defendant or one of his witnesses and the material is not
merely cumulative, prejudicial error requiring reversal may
result.” Martin v. Estelle, 541 F.2d 1147, 1148 (5th Cir. 1976).
With the exception of the Continental Airlines record, none of
the extrinsic material mentioned Lujan or linked him to the
offense with which he is charged. The government claims that the
Continental Airlines record was cumulative because in its
rebuttal it introduced the tickets and reservation documents from
18
the same flight indicating that two people identified to the
airline as Carlos and A. Lujan took the April 9, 1994 flight.7
Given the fact that this evidence documented the same event as
the extrinsic material in question, we conclude that the district
7
Lujan claims that because the tickets were admitted in
violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(C), they
cannot be considered properly admitted evidence. He therefore
argues that the airline record that was mistakenly taken into the
jury room cannot be considered merely cumulative of properly
admitted evidence. We disagree.
Lujan has not challenged the admission of the tickets and
reservation records directly; he does so only in one portion of
his argument regarding the extrinsic material that was taken into
the jury room. Even assuming that this point is properly raised,
however, we think that the district court’s admission of the
tickets was proper. Rule 16(a)(1)(C) requires that the
government disclose documents and tangible objects “which are
within the possession, custody, or control of the government and
which are material to the preparation of the defendant’s
defense.” FED. R. CRIM. PRO. 16(a)(1)(C).
The trial record indicates that the rebuttal witness, the
custodian of records at Continental Airlines, brought the tickets
with him on the day of his testimony and the government did not
have access to them prior to its examination of the witness. In
its rebuttal, the government introduced reservations records from
Continental Airlines through the witness’s testimony. During the
government’s examination of the witness, defense counsel took the
witness on voir dire and proceeded to question him regarding
whether the reservation records would indicate whether the person
who reserved the ticket was actually on the flight. When
pursuing this line of questioning, defense counsel was aware that
the government was in possession of the tickets that were
collected when the airplane was boarded. Thus, because defense
counsel opened the door to the issue and was aware of the tickets
when it did so, the district court’s decision to admit the
tickets was not improper. Cf. United States v. Delk, 586 F.2d
513, 519 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that license tag receipts which
were not disclosed to the defense prior to their introduction at
trial, through no fault of the government, were properly admitted
in the government’s rebuttal case because the defense opened the
door by focusing on the lack of physical evidence).
19
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lujan’s motion for
new trial.
G. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Uribe, Lujan, and Arevalo argue that the evidence was
insufficient to sustain their convictions for the crimes with
which they were charged. In considering challenges to the
sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence,
whether direct or circumstantial, in the light most favorable to
the jury verdict. United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910
(5th Cir. 1995). Moreover, we resolve all credibility
determinations and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in
favor of the verdict. Id. at 911. The evidence is sufficient to
support the verdict if a reasonable trier of fact could have
found the essential elements of the crime to be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. We address the claims of each defendant
in turn.
(1) Uribe
Uribe argues that the government’s evidence was insufficient
to prove that he was part of the drug conspiracy. “‘To establish
the offense of a drug conspiracy, the Government must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed, that the
accused knew of the conspiracy, and that he voluntarily joined
it.’” United States v. Dean, 59 F.3d 1479, 1485 (5th Cir. 1995)
(quoting United States v. Limones, 8 F.3d 1004, 1009 (5th Cir.
20
1993)), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 794 (1996). While the
government may prove these elements through circumstantial
evidence, “‘we have repeatedly stressed that we will not lightly
infer a defendant’s knowledge of and participation in a
conspiracy.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Maltos, 985 F.2d
743, 746 (5th Cir. 1992)). Thus, evidence that it is more likely
than not that the defendant knowingly joined a conspiracy is not
sufficient to prove the government’s case beyond a reasonable
doubt. Id.
Uribe maintains that he is a legitimate businessman whose
only interaction with the members of the conspiracy was
purchasing used automobiles from them. At trial, Herrera
testified that Uribe was responsible for receiving the drugs on
behalf of Chavez-Quezada upon their arrival in the destination
city. Herrera’s testimony was corroborated by the fact that,
when arrested, Uribe’s wallet contained Peña’s pager number and
cellular phone number. Moreover, Uribe’s pager number was found
in Herrera’s electronic organizer and on a piece of paper found
at one of the stash houses.
In addition, Mason testified extensively as to the dates
that he made drug deliveries to different cities. Hotel receipts
indicated that on several occasions Uribe was in those cities
when Mason made the deliveries. Mason also testified that on two
different occasions he delivered cocaine to Victorville,
California and that he was told that Victorville had been chosen
21
because the people who were receiving the drugs lived there.
Documentary evidence indicated that Uribe lived in Victorville.
Finally, the government introduced into evidence taped
conversations in which Peña and Uribe discussed the logistics of
the exchange of the vans.
“[A] guilty verdict may be sustained if supported only by
the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator, even if the
witness is interested due to a plea bargain or promise of
leniency, unless the testimony is incredible or insubstantial on
its face.” United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1552 (5th Cir.
1994). In this case the testimony of the co-conspirators was
supported by other evidence admitted at trial. When viewed in
the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence admitted at
trial was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that
a conspiracy existed and that Uribe knowingly and voluntarily
joined it.
(2) Lujan
Lujan contends that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find that he was
guilty of the offenses of drug conspiracy, drug possession, and
aiding and abetting. As noted above, in order to prove the
offense of drug conspiracy, the government must prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed and that the defendant
knowingly and voluntarily joined it. Dean, 59 F.3d at 1485. In
22
order to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting a drug
possession with intent to distribute, the government must prove
both the offense of aiding and abetting and the offense of drug
possession. “The elements for possession of drugs with intent to
distribute are as follows: (1) knowledge of the contraband, (2)
possession of the contraband, and (3) intent to distribute the
contraband.” United States v. Pedroza, 78 F.3d 179, 183 (5th
Cir. 1996). In order to prove the aiding and abetting aspect of
the charge, the government was required to show (1) Lujan’s
association in the criminal activity, (2) his participation in
it, and (3) the actions that he took for the purpose of making
the criminal activity succeed. Id.
At trial, Mason testified that Lujan participated in three
different drug transportation trips and that on two of those
trips, Lujan drove the lead vehicle. This testimony was
corroborated by airline records indicating that Lujan flew from
Houston to El Paso on April 9, 1994, just two days before the
April 11 trip during which he was arrested. Mason also testified
that when he, Lujan, and Mora-Medrano were being held together
prior to their arraignment, Lujan told him to “keep his mouth
shut.” In addition, Herrera testified that Lujan was a member of
the organization and that during one of the trips Lujan answered
the mobile phone when Herrera called the car. Finally, when
Lujan was arrested, phone numbers of other members of the
conspiracy were found in his wallet. Viewed in the light most
23
favorable to the jury’s verdict, we think the evidence admitted
at trial was sufficient to allow the jury to find Lujan guilty on
all three counts.
(3) Arevalo
Arevalo challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
supporting his conviction for possession with intent to
distribute in excess of five kilograms of cocaine. As noted
above, in order to establish that a defendant is guilty of
possession with intent to distribute, the government must prove
that the defendant had knowledge and possession of the contraband
and that he intended to distribute it. Pedroza, 78 F.3d at 183.
Possession of a quantity of drugs too large for ordinary
consumption suggests an intent to distribute. See United States
v. Pineda-Ortuna, 952 F.2d 98, 102 (5th Cir. 1992).
The evidence admitted at trial indicated that Arevalo was
dropped off by a taxicab at a McDonald’s restaurant and went
briefly inside. When he exited the McDonald’s, he drove away in
a blue pickup truck that DEA agents had followed from a house
that had received a delivery of cocaine on the previous day.
Moments later, Arevalo was stopped and arrested, and 340.7
kilograms of cocaine were found in the vehicle.
Although Arevalo, a mechanic, testified that he had been
called to pick up the truck because it had mechanical problems,
DEA officers found no evidence of such problems, Arevalo did not
24
inspect the truck before driving it away, and he did not have
tools with him when he was arrested. Further, he claimed that he
did not get the name of the owner or the truck’s exact location
before leaving to pick it up at the McDonald’s. In addition, his
shop was located approximately thirty miles from the McDonald’s
where he picked up the truck, and he was arrested after exiting
the freeway at a different exit than the one that would have led
back to his shop. This evidence was sufficient for a reasonable
jury to find Arevalo guilty of the crime of possession of cocaine
with intent to distribute.
H. Application of the Sentencing Guidelines
Arevalo and Uribe challenge the sentences imposed upon them
by the district court. We will uphold a sentence imposed under
the sentencing guidelines if it is the result of a correct
application of the guidelines to factual findings that are not
clearly erroneous. United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 198
(5th Cir. 1995).
(1) Arevalo
Arevalo argues that the district court erred in refusing to
grant him a four-point reduction in his offense level pursuant to
§ 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Section 3B1.2 provides for
a four-point reduction where the defendant was a “minimal”
participant in the criminal activity and a two-point reduction
where the defendant was a “minor” participant. U.S. SENTENCING
25
GUIDELINES § 3B1.2. This provision is not applicable to Arevalo.
Arevalo’s participation in the criminal activity was
limited to driving a single truckload of cocaine that amounted to
less than one percent of the total amount allegedly involved in
the conspiracy. However, Arevalo was acquitted on the conspiracy
charge; he was found guilty only of possession with intent to
distribute 340.7 kilograms of cocaine. His sentence therefore
was based entirely on his possession of the drugs, an activity in
which he clearly was involved. “[W]hen a sentence is based on an
activity in which a defendant was actually involved, § 3B1.2 does
not require a reduction in the base offense level even though the
defendant’s activity in a larger conspiracy may have been minor
or minimal.” Atanda, 60 F.3d at 199. Thus, the district court
did not err in refusing to reduce Arevalo’s offense level.
(2) Uribe
Uribe contends that the district court erred by increasing
his offense level by three points pursuant to § 3B1.1(b) of the
Sentencing Guidelines. Section 3B1.1(b) provides that the
defendant’s offense level should be increased by three levels if
“the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer
or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more
participants or was otherwise extensive.” U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES
§ 3B1.1(b). Uribe contends that § 3B1.1(b) does not apply to him
because under the government’s theory he was merely a driver
26
without any real authority in the conspiracy. Further, he
disputes the finding that there were five people working under
him in the conspiracy.
A district court’s determination that a defendant is an
organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor under § 3B1.1 is a
factual finding which this court reviews only for clear error.
See United States v. Giraldo, 111 F.3d 21, 23 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 66 U.S.L.W. 3282 (Oct. 14, 1997); United States v.
Valencia, 44 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir. 1995). “A factual finding
is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible in light of the
record read as a whole.” Valencia, 44 F.3d at 272.
In sentencing Uribe, the district court adopted the
Presentence Investigation Report’s finding that he was a manager
or supervisor in the conspiracy. A Presentence Investigation
Report “‘generally bears sufficient indicia of reliability to be
considered as evidence by the trial judge in making the factual
determinations required by the guidelines.’” United States v.
Jobe, 101 F.3d 1046, 1065 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting United States
v. Elwood, 999 F.2d 814, 817 (5th Cir. 1993)), cert. denied, 118
S. Ct. 81 (1997). Having reviewed the record and the Presentence
Investigation Report, we cannot say that the district court’s
factual determination that Uribe was a manager or supervisor was
clearly erroneous. We therefore find that the district court did
not err in increasing Uribe’s offense level by three points
pursuant to § 3B1.1(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines.
27
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s
judgment of conviction and sentence as to each defendant-
appellant.
28