FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 2, 2009
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
PUBLISH Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 08-4078
RAFAEL VILLEGAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
(D.C. NO. 2:05-CR-00891-TC-BCW-1)
Robert Breeze, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendant - Appellant.
Diana Hagen, Assistant United States Attorney, (Brett L. Tolman, United States
Attorney, with her on the brief), Salt Lake City, Utah, for Plaintiff - Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
HARTZ, Circuit Judge.
After a search of his car revealed several packages of illicit drugs, Rafael
Villegas was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Utah
on one count of possession “with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of actual
or pure methamphetamine,” in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and
one count of possession “with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture
or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine,” in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). R. Vol. I Doc. 1 at 1–2. His motion to suppress evidence
was denied, and he was convicted by a jury on both counts. On appeal he raises
two contentions: (1) that the search of his car was unlawful and (2) that the
district court erroneously instructed the jury regarding the definition of “actual or
pure” methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and
affirm. We first address Mr. Villegas’s challenge to the search of his car and then
his challenge to the instruction.
I. THE SEARCH
Mr. Villegas was stopped by a police officer for a minor traffic violation.
The district court ruled that after the officer gave Mr. Villegas a warning and
returned his driver’s license and his registration and insurance documents,
Mr. Villegas voluntarily consented to further questioning and a search of his car.
Mr. Villegas contends that his consent was not voluntary because a hand gesture
by the officer after returning the documents constituted an order for him to stay to
answer questions. We uphold the district court’s ruling.
A. Background
In the afternoon of June 12, 2005, Utah Highway Patrol Field Trooper
Michael Bradford was parked in his patrol car in front of the Blanding, Utah,
-2-
visitors center on State Route 191. Observing a silver Mercury Grand Marquis
traveling northbound, he believed that the car’s windows were tinted more than
allowed under Utah law, and he noticed the car drift across the white fog line on
the side of the road for about 20 feet.
Bradford stopped the car, whose sole occupant was Mr. Villegas. Bradford
requested his driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance.
Bradford noticed that Mr. Villegas’s hands were shaking nervously. He also
observed in the car several religious and patriotic ornaments, six air fresheners,
and a bottle of cologne in a front-seat cup holder. Bradford smelled the fresh
odor of cologne. From his training and experience Bradford believed that the air
fresheners and cologne were meant to mask the odor of controlled substances and
that the ornaments were to suggest that the driver was an upstanding citizen.
Asked about his travels, Mr. Villegas responded that he was driving from
Tucson to Denver to visit his father for a week. Mr. Villegas told Bradford that
he had been living in the United States for 18 years, and Bradford believed that
Mr. Villegas spoke passable English.
After returning to his patrol car to check the validity of Mr. Villegas’s
driver’s license and registration, Bradford signaled for Mr. Villegas to come to
the patrol car. He then asked Mr. Villegas additional questions while he filled out
a warning for the lane violation. Mr. Villegas became more nervous while sitting
-3-
in the patrol car. Bradford found this suspicious because people usually relax
after learning that they are only going to receive a warning.
As Bradford was writing up the warning, Trooper Charlie Taylor arrived
and questioned Mr. Villegas while standing by the front passenger window of
Bradford’s car. Mr. Villegas told Taylor that he was driving from Mesa to
Denver to meet a couple family members. Because Mr. Villegas had told
Bradford that he was driving from Tucson to visit his father, Bradford asked more
specific questions about the trip. Mr. Villegas began to act as if he did not
understand Bradford and responded by saying “no comprend[o]” and the like.
R. Vol. IV at 26. Taylor returned to the front of his car, which was behind
Bradford’s, and waited.
After issuing Mr. Villegas a written warning and returning his documents,
Bradford advised him that he was free to go and told him something to the effect
of “have a good day.” Id. at 27. As Mr. Villegas began to exit the patrol
car—after he had opened the door and placed a foot on the side of the
road—Bradford requested to ask some questions. At the suppression hearing
Mr. Villegas testified that when Bradford made the request, he simultaneously
said “hey” and gestured with his left hand. Id. at 122. Mr. Villegas demonstrated
the gesture, which he interpreted as indicating that he should stop. Bradford
testified that he did not remember making a hand gesture but admitted, “I usually
explain things using my hands.” Id. at 89. The district court found that “Trooper
-4-
Bradford apparently raised his left hand with an open palm to approximately the
level of his own chest.” Id. Vol. I Doc. 108 at 3.
Mr. Villegas responded affirmatively to Bradford’s request and sat back
down in the patrol car. Bradford asked whether Mr. Villegas had anything illegal
in his car—specifically, weapons, marijuana, or cocaine. Mr. Villegas responded
that he did not. Bradford then requested consent to search Mr. Villegas’s car, and
Mr. Villegas responded that he could. When Bradford asked whether
Mr. Villegas understood, he answered, “Si.” Id. Vol. IV at 29.
Bradford and other officers searched the car at the scene and conducted two
dog sniffs, but without success. They then had Mr. Villegas drive his car to a
mechanic shop 22 miles away (Mr. Villegas does not challenge on appeal the
district court’s finding that he consented to this) and searched the car after it was
raised on a hoist. The officers found five packages of controlled substances.
B. Discussion
On appeal from the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the factual
findings of the district court for clear error, but we review de novo the ultimate
determination of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment. See United States
v. West, 219 F.3d 1171, 1176 (10th Cir. 2000).
Mr. Villegas’s challenge to the search is based on his contention that after
Bradford returned his driver’s license and other documents, he did not voluntarily
-5-
consent to further questioning. He asserts that Bradford’s hand gesture compelled
him to stay. As a consequence, he argues, the subsequent search was invalid.
“A driver must be permitted to proceed after a routine traffic stop if a
license and registration check reveal no reason to detain the driver unless the
officer has reasonable articulable suspicion of other crimes or the driver
voluntarily consents to further questioning.” Id. The government does not
contend that Bradford had a reasonable articulable suspicion of other crimes. A
traffic stop may become consensual
if the officer returns the license and registration and asks questions
without further constraining the driver by an overbearing show of
authority. . . . Whether an encounter can be deemed consensual
depends on whether the police conduct would have conveyed to a
reasonable person that he or she was not free to decline the officer’s
requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted)
Mr. Villegas characterizes Bradford’s hand gesture as a “command to halt,”
Aplt Br. at 15, and contends that a reasonable person would not have felt free to
leave. The district court, however, observed Mr. Villegas demonstrate the hand
gesture at the suppression hearing and “did not find Mr. Villegas’s demonstration
indicative of a showing of authority, but found the demonstration more akin to a
vague, inconsequential hand gesture.” R. Vol. I Doc. 108 at 9.
Although Mr. Villegas asks that we review this finding de novo, our firm
rule is that “[w]e uphold a district court’s factual findings regarding consent
-6-
unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Cruz-Mendez, 467 F.3d 1260,
1265 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The appearance of the
hand gesture is a matter of historical fact, not involving an analysis of Fourth
Amendment law, and is peculiarly a matter best left to the fact finder. The
district court not only saw Mr. Villegas’s demonstration but heard Mr. Villegas’s
and Bradford’s testimony regarding the surrounding circumstances. As a fellow
circuit court recently said in a similar situation, “On the cold record before us, we
cannot recreate the actual gesture demonstrated to the district court. Instead, this
type of inquiry recommends our deferential review of the lower court’s factual
findings.” United States v. Ford, 548 F.3d 1, 6-7 (1st Cir. 2008). We conclude
that the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.
In light of that proper finding, we affirm the district court’s ruling that
Mr. Villegas’s consent to stay for further questioning was voluntary for purposes
of the Fourth Amendment. The consent was not rendered involuntary simply
because Mr. Villegas had not completely exited the patrol car when Bradford
made the request, particularly because the door to the patrol car was open. See
United States v. Bradford, 423 F.3d 1149, 1159 (10th Cir. 2005) (fact that
defendant was sitting in patrol car when officer solicited consent to further
questioning did not make defendant’s consent involuntary); United States v.
Chavira, 467 F.3d 1286 (10th Cir. 2006) (fact that defendant’s path to his vehicle
was unobstructed was factor in determining that defendant’s consent was
-7-
voluntary). Also, although Trooper Taylor had arrived on the scene, his presence
was not significantly coercive because he had walked to the front of his own
vehicle, which was behind Bradford’s patrol car. See Chavira, 467 F.3d at 1291
(fact that second officer stayed in his own patrol car until first officer obtained
consent to search was factor in determining that defendant’s consent was
voluntary). Most importantly, the district court found that “all the credible
evidence indicates Trooper Bradford was polite and pleasant when he made his
request.” R. Vol. I Doc. 108 at 9. See West, 219 F.3d at 1177 (“There was no
evidence that [the officer] used a commanding or threatening manner or tone of
voice, displayed a weapon, or touched [the defendant].”) Even if Mr. Villegas
interpreted Bradford’s hand gesture as an order to stop, his subjective
understanding of the encounter is not relevant because “[a] person is seized only
when that person has an objective reason to believe he or she is not free to end the
conversation with the officer and proceed on his or her way.” United States v.
Hernandez, 93 F.3d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Mr. Villegas’s motion
to suppress.
II. JURY INSTRUCTION
The first count of the indictment charged Mr. Villegas with possessing with
intent to distribute 50 grams or more of “actual or pure” methamphetamine.
R. Vol. I Doc. 1 at 1. According to the government’s chemist, one package seized
-8-
from Mr. Villegas’s car contained material that was “85.1 percent pure
methamphetamine.” Id. Vol. XI at 23. Mr. Villegas contends that the district
court improperly instructed the jury that it could convict him on this count even if
it found that he was in possession of something other than “actual or pure”
methamphetamine. 1 His contention rests on the premise that one possesses
“actual or pure” methamphetamine only if the substance possessed is of 100%
purity. We reject that premise.
A. Background
Jennifer McNair, a forensic scientist from the Utah State Crime Laboratory,
testified at trial that she had tested the five packages found in Mr. Villegas’s car.
Four tested positive for cocaine, which was the basis for Mr. Villegas’s
conviction on the second count of the indictment. The fifth package contained a
crystalline material weighing 439.5 grams. A test of a small portion of the
material showed it to be 85.1% methamphetamine. Based on this purity and the
1
In his brief to this court, Mr. Villegas also raises what he terms two
“subsidiary issues”: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on
this count because the government’s expert witness did not testify that he
possessed any pure methamphetamine, and (2) that the district court
constructively amended the indictment by allowing the jury to convict him for
possession of impure methamphetamine. Aplt. Br. at 20. Mr. Villegas does not,
however, show where he raised either argument below. He contends that he
raised a sufficiency-of-the evidence argument at trial, but cites only to his closing
argument. He does not contend that he raised the constructive-amendment
argument below. In any event, our analysis and rejection of his challenge to the
jury instruction establishes that his two additional arguments likewise lack merit.
-9-
amount of material, she determined that there were 374 grams of actual or pure
methamphetamine in the package (439.5 grams x 85.1% = 374 grams).
At the jury-instruction conference Mr. Villegas proposed the following
instruction: “The terms ‘pure methamphetamine’ and ‘actual methamphetamine’
are synonymous and mean undiluted methamphetamine. If methamphetamine is
not pure or actual it is known as a mixture or substance containing a detectable
amount of methamphetamine.” Id. Supp. Vol. XV. The district court rejected the
proposed instruction because it did not “want to confuse the jury to think that
merely because it’s 85 percent pure methamphetamine, you can’t find him guilty.”
Id. Supp. Vol. XVI at 14. Instead, the court proposed that the jury be instructed:
“‘Pure’ or ‘actual’ methamphetamine refers not only to a particular form of
methamphetamine but rather to relative purity of any methamphetamine
compound.” Id. Vol. II Doc. 192 at 28. Mr. Villegas objected to this instruction,
arguing that the jury could not convict him of possessing pure methamphetamine
if the substance he possessed was only 85% methamphetamine. The court
rejected his argument and gave its proposed instruction. On a special-verdict
form the jury stated that Mr. Villegas possessed with intent to distribute “374
grams or more of actual or pure methamphetamine.” Id. Vol. II Doc. 194 at 1.
B. Discussion
“This court reviews a trial court’s decision on whether to give a particular
jury instruction for abuse of discretion and views the instructions as a whole de
-10-
novo to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the governing
law.” United States v. Adkins, 196 F.3d 1112, 1114 (10th Cir. 1999). “The
instructions as a whole need not be flawless, but we must be satisfied that, upon
hearing the instructions, the jury understood the issues to be resolved and its duty
to resolve them.” United States v. Fredette, 315 F.3d 1235, 1240-41 (10th Cir.
2003) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Count I of the indictment charged Mr. Villegas with a violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1). Section 841(a)(1) prohibits knowingly or
intentionally possessing with intent to distribute various controlled substances.
Section 841(b)(1) sets forth the minimum and maximum sentence for a violation
of § 841(a) based on the type and quantity of controlled substance. A defendant
may be sentenced to no less than 10 years’ imprisonment and up to life
imprisonment for the possession of “50 grams or more of methamphetamine . . .
or 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of
methamphetamine.” Id. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).
The circuit courts have repeatedly rejected the argument that the language
“50 grams or more of methamphetamine” in § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) applies only
when the material possessed by the defendant is pure methamphetamine (as
opposed to methamphetamine found in a mixture or substance). See United States
v. Blake, 116 F.3d 1202 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Frazier, 28 F.3d 99
(11th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 879–80 (4th Cir. 1992);
-11-
United States v. Alfeche, 942 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Stoner,
927 F.2d 45 (1st Cir. 1991). The defendants in these cases have read
§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) as having two mutually exclusive provisions: (1) the 500-
gram provision, which applies when one has “a mixture or substance containing a
detectable amount of methamphetamine,” and (2) the 50-gram provision, which,
according to the defendants, must apply only when there is no such mixture—that
is, when the methamphetamine is “pure.” But the courts have found it eminently
reasonable for Congress to have made the two provisions nonexclusive
alternatives, allowing prosecution under the 50-gram provision when a mixture
contains at least 50 grams of methamphetamine. They have pointed out that the
defendants’ construction of the statute would produce the absurdity that an
individual with 495 grams of pure methamphetamine could mix in 4 grams of
baking soda, resulting in an “impure” mixture of 499 grams, and thereby escape
the statutory mandatory minimum because he would possess neither 50 grams of
pure methamphetamine nor 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing
methamphetamine. See, e.g., Stoner, 927 F.2d at 46 (decided when the mandatory
minimum was triggered by a fifth of the quantities now required). The courts
have found no statutory language or history “indicating that Congress intended
such an illogical result.” Id. Other opinions have also pointed out that because a
chemist is highly unlikely to be able to prepare a batch of methamphetamine that
-12-
is 100% pure, the 50-gram provision would never apply if the courts adopted the
defendants’ interpretation. See, e.g., Blake, 116 F.3d at 1203–04.
Perhaps our case is distinguishable from these precedents because the
indictment and the jury instructions, unlike the statute, use the words actual and
pure. See United States v. Williams, 376 F.3d 1048, 1051 (10th Cir. 2004) (under
law-of-the-case doctrine, government has burden of proving every element of
crime set forth in an instruction to which it did not object, even if element is not
required by the statute). But, in our view, the addition of those words is
immaterial. The United States Sentencing Guidelines are instructive in this
regard. USSG § 2D1.1(c) is a table setting forth base offense levels for drug
offenses depending on the quantity of drugs involved. The quantities for
methamphetamine are expressed in terms of one quantity for “Methamphetamine”
and one-tenth as much for “Methamphetamine (actual).” E.g., USSG
§ 2D1.1(c)(1) (setting a base offense level of 38 for “15 KG or more of
Methamphetamine, or 1.5 KG or more of Methamphetamine (actual)”). Notes (A)
and (B) to that provision explain the meaning of the language in the table:
Unless otherwise specified, the weight of a controlled substance set
forth in the table refers to the entire weight of any mixture or
substance containing a detectable amount of the controlled substance.
Id. § 2D1.1(c), n.(A).
The terms “PCP (actual)”, “Amphetamine (actual)”, and
“Methamphetamine (actual)” refer to the weight of the controlled
substance, itself, contained in the mixture or substance. For
-13-
example, a mixture weighing 10 grams containing PCP at 50% purity
contains 5 grams of PCP (actual). In the case of a mixture or
substance containing PCP, amphetamine, or methamphetamine, use
the offense level determined by the entire weight of the mixture or
substance, or the offense level determined by the weight of the PCP
(actual), amphetamine (actual), or methamphetamine (actual),
whichever is greater.
§ 2D1.1(c), n.(B). Thus, in the case before us the amount of “Methamphetamine
(actual)” would be calculated just as the government chemist testified and as the
jury found: 439.5 grams of mixture x 85.1% purity = 374 grams of actual or pure
methamphetamine. Although the present guidelines use the word actual and not
pure, the current term “Methamphetamine (actual)” replaces the earlier language
“Pure Methamphetamine” in both the table and the defining notes. See USSG
app. C, amend. 395 (Nov. 1, 1997). Although the Sentencing Commission has
decided that the term “Methamphetamine (actual)” is superior to “Pure
Methamphetamine,” it has construed both terms as referring to the amount of
methamphetamine present in a mixture.
We adopt the same view as our fellow circuits regarding the meaning of
§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), and the same view as the Sentencing Commission regarding
the meanings of pure and actual. Mr. Villegas’s interpretation appears to be
based on a misconception that “pure” methamphetamine is something different
from methamphetamine found in a mixture. But methamphetamine is the same
specific compound wherever it is found. A molecule is either methamphetamine
or it is not. A molecule cannot be, for example, 85% pure methamphetamine.
-14-
Percentage of purity is not a feature of the compound itself but rather a measure
of what other compounds—that is, what other kinds of molecules—are present in
the package (or pill, or other product). To say that a substance is 85%
methamphetamine or 85% pure methamphetamine is to say that 85% of the
substance (by weight or perhaps another metric) is methamphetamine molecules.
From this point of view, the requirements of § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) are rather
straightforward. A defendant comes within that section in two possible ways.
First, he may possess 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance that contains
enough methamphetamine molecules that the methamphetamine is detectable.
Second, he may possess a substance or mixture that contains methamphetamine
molecules whose total weight equals or exceeds 50 grams. When, as in this case,
a chemist multiplies the weight of a substance or mixture by the percentage (by
weight) of the substance that is composed of methamphetamine molecules (which
could range from less than 1% to more than 99%), the chemist is computing the
weight of the methamphetamine molecules in the substance or mixture. If that
weight equals or exceeds 50 grams, then the defendant possessed 50 or more
grams of methamphetamine and is subject to punishment under
§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii).
It is not obvious to us that use of the terms pure methamphetamine and
actual methamphetamine is an improvement over using simply the term
methamphetamine, and we do not recommend the instruction in this case. But the
-15-
issue is intuitively clear, so it is unlikely that the instruction’s terminology would
confuse a jury, at least when an expert chemist explains the calculation, as
happened here. The chemist’s calculation produced the pertinent number for
purposes of § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and the jury adopted that same number in its
special verdict. We see no reversible error in the district court’s use of the
challenged instruction or its rejection of Mr. Villegas’s proposed instruction.
III. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the judgment below.
-16-