Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10959
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00232-CAP-LTW-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROGELIO BENITEZ,
a.k.a. Roy,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(October 15, 2015)
Before HULL, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 2 of 6
Rogelio Benitez appeals his convictions and sentence of 235 months of
imprisonment for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine,
21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), 846, and conspiring to launder the proceeds
of illegal drug trafficking activity, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1), (h). Benitez challenges
the admission of testimony from Agent Michael Connolly of the Drug
Enforcement Agency about code words used by Benitez and his coconspirators; the
denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal; and the amount of drugs attributed
to him at sentencing. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Agent
Connolly’s testimony as lay testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. Like
the federal agent who testified about the meaning of code words in United States v.
Jayyousi, 657 F.3d 1085, 1102–04 (11th Cir. 2011), Connolly’s testimony was
“rationally based on [his] perception”; helpful to the jury; and “not based on
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,” as required in Rule 701.
Connolly, the lead investigator of the conspiracy, testified that he interpreted the
coded language used by Benitez and his coconspirators during telephone calls on
April 2, 2011, and on April 21, 2011, by connecting particular phrases to specific
actions that Connolly observed while surveilling the coconspirators. Connolly’s
interpretation of each conversation, which he accompanied with a description of
and photographs showing the conspirators’ ensuing activities, helped the jury to
2
Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 3 of 6
understand that Benitez’s and his coconspirators’ use of particular numbers with
the phrases “title to a truck” and “paint cans” related to the transfer of specific
amounts of cash and methamphetamine. Connolly had experience investigating
drug trafficking organizations, but he did not base his opinion on that experience.
Connolly interpreted the coded language based on his review of wiretap
summaries, transcripts, and the intercepted calls; intelligence he gathered about the
drug conspiracy; and his personal observation of the conspirators’ conduct. See
Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping Co., 320 F.3d 1213,
1221 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Novaton, 271 F.3d 968, 1008–09 (11th Cir.
2001). Connolly’s testimony constituted a lay opinion admissible under Rule 701.
Substantial evidence supports Benitez’s convictions. We review this issue
for a manifest miscarriage of justice because Benitez failed to renew his motion for
a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of the evidence. See United States v.
House, 684 F.3d 1173, 1196 (11th Cir. 2012). Viewed in the light most favorable
to the prosecution, evidence of telephone calls between the conspirators,
surveillance photographs, and testimony from Connolly, Agent Deverron
Ramcheran, Agent Lamar Dyar, and a cooperating witness, Stephanie Espinoza,
proved that Benitez conspired with Ivan Najero-Suazo, Domingo Najero-Suazo,
and Alejandro Maldonado to distribute methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 846;
United States v. Isnadin, 742 F.3d 1278, 1305 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct.
3
Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 4 of 6
161, 233 (2014). Benitez identified himself as the “right hand man” to Ivan and as
a “silent investor” in the trafficking operation; associated with Ivan and retrieved a
bag from him thought to contain $30,000 in drug proceeds; agreed to provide
Domingo 2 kilograms of methamphetamine and later retrieved the identical
amount of the drug from Maldonado after he complained that it was unmarketable;
assisted Domingo in purchasing a tractor-trailer truck to transport
methamphetamine; helped Ivan and Domingo unload a shipment of what was
thought to be methamphetamine that had been packed inside boxes of fresh
tomatoes; and drove a Ford pickup truck that Ivan and Domingo used to store 25
kilograms of methamphetamine in Espinoza’s garage and that contained a hidden
compartment identical to one in a coconspirator’s truck from which federal agents
seized more than 9 kilograms of methamphetamine. Ample evidence also
supported the jury’s finding that Benitez conspired to launder the proceeds of the
drug trafficking operation. See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); United States v. Broughton,
689 F.3d 1260, 1280–81 (11th Cir. 2012). The testimony of Agent James Cockrell,
Officer Christopher Harrison, and Sergeant Charles Chapeau proved Benitez gave
Angelica Chavarria, a currency courier for known brokers in Mexico, a duffle bag
and suitcase inside which federal agents discovered $500,000 in cash. None of the
evidence on any element of either conspiracy offense “is so tenuous that
4
Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 5 of 6
[Benitez’s] conviction[s] [are] shocking.” See House, 684 F.3d at 1196 (quoting
United States v. Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339, 1343 (11th Cir. 2006)).
The district court did not clearly err in holding Benitez responsible for more
than 22 kilograms of methamphetamine. The Sentencing Guidelines provide that a
defendant is subject to a base offense level of 38 if he is responsible for 45
kilograms or more of methamphetamine and a base offense level of 36 if he is
responsible for between 15 and 45 kilograms of the drug. United States Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(1), (2) (Nov. 2014). Benitez’s presentence
investigation report held him responsible for 47.38 kilograms of
methamphetamine, which included the 25 kilograms that federal agents seized
from the truck in Espinoza’s garage. But the district court found the evidence was
insufficient to hold Benitez responsible for the 25 kilograms and determined that
he had an offense level of 36 based on the 2 kilograms that he provided to
Domingo and on the 20.383 kilograms equivalent to the $30,000 in drug proceeds
that Benitez obtained from Maldonado and the $500,000 that Benitez gave to
Chavarria. Benitez argues that there is insufficient evidence to connect the
$500,000 to drug trafficking, but the district court was entitled to find that cash
constituted drug proceeds based on its large amount, its delivery to Chavarria in
the parking lot of a grocery store, Chavarria’s departure in a taxi, her denial of
knowledge about the bags when questioned by law enforcement, and the indication
5
Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 6 of 6
of drug canines that the money smelled like narcotics. See United States v. Ndiaye,
434 F.3d 1270, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he district court’s choice between
permissible views [of the evidence for purposes of sentencing] cannot be clear
error.”). Benitez also argues that he should not be held responsible for the $30,000,
but even if we subtract its drug equivalent of 1.153 kilograms of
methamphetamine, Benitez remains responsible for 22.38 kilograms of the drug.
Based on that amount of methamphetamine, the district court correctly assigned
Benitez a base offense level of 36. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(2).
We AFFIRM Benitez’s convictions and sentence.
6