Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0776-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramon HUESO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    Filed March 14, 2011.
    Andrea Steward, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Colleen Ann Libbey, Libbey Law Offices, LLC, Anchorage, AK, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: McKEOWN,'FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The evidence at trial was sufficient to support a reasonable jury’s conclusion that Hueso agreed to participate in the conspiracy. Hueso not only repeatedly fronted drugs knowing that he would be paid only if they were resold, but also participated in and structured the final transaction. See United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir.2009). Venue was proper because an overt act of the conspiracy— drug sales — occurred in Alaska. United States v. Corona, 34 F.3d 876, 879 (9th Cir.1994).

The district court did not clearly err by finding Hueso was a “leader” within the scope of U.S.S.G. § 3Bl.l(c) for purposes of applying a two-level enhancement. Evidence reasonably showed he exercised decisionmaking authority and directed his co-conspirator’s participation in and the terms of the final transaction. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050-51 (9th Cir.2000); United States v. Varela, 993 F.2d 686, 691 (9th Cir.1993).

The government’s information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 was sufficient to give Hueso clear notice of the crime the government intended to use as the basis for its request for an enhanced sentence, despite the information’s errors and omissions. See United States v. Severino, 316 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

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