Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01569/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01569-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Emilio Valdez
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1569

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska. 

Emilio Valdez, * 

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2004

Filed: June 2, 2005

___________

Before BYE, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Emilio Valdez was convicted of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams

or more of methamphetamine. At trial, the government presented testimony from two

police officers who had searched Valdez’s car. Although Valdez was not driving the

car immediately before it was searched, he identified himself as the owner and

consented to a search. The officers found 460.6 grams of methamphetamine in the

vehicle. Nina Villela, who recently had pleaded guilty to unrelated drug charges and

was awaiting sentencing, also testified at trial. She indicated that Valdez frequently

distributed methamphetamine to her in quantities that ranged “from ounces to

pounds.” 

Appellate Case: 04-1569 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2005 Entry ID: 1910423
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

-2-

Valdez moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s

case-in-chief, but the district court1

 denied his motion. Valdez’s sole defense witness

was his brother, Antonio Ramirez Cortez, who testified that he – not Valdez – was the

person who set up drug buys with Villela, and that he identified himself as “Emilio”

when he was on the phone with her. Ramirez also testified that he was driving

Valdez’s vehicle the night that it was searched, and that Valdez had not been aware

that there were drugs in the car.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty. A presentence investigation report

(“PSR”) recommended that Valdez be held responsible for 2.28 kilograms of

methamphetamine, based on the 460.6 grams that were found in Valdez’s car and on

Villela’s testimony that she had purchased four to five pounds of methamphetamine

from Valdez. The PSR thus recommended a guideline range of 151-188 months’

imprisonment. Valdez objected to the sufficiency of evidence to support the

recommended drug quantity. The district court sustained the objection in part, and

found that the drug quantity was between 500 grams and 1.5 kilograms. Valdez was

then sentenced to 121 months’ imprisonment and 5 years of supervised release.

Valdez’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support

Valdez’s conviction. In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we give the jury

verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences, and we ask whether any reasonable

jury could have found the elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

United States v. McDougal, 137 F.3d 547, 553 (8th Cir. 1998). Valdez’s ownership

and control of the vehicle in which police found methamphetamine supported his

conviction based on a theory of constructive possession. See United States v. CampaFabela, 210 F.3d 837, 839-40 (8th Cir. 2000). The jury also was entitled to believe

Appellate Case: 04-1569 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2005 Entry ID: 1910423
-3-

Villela’s testimony that she received methamphetamine from Valdez in the weeks

prior to his arrest and that she had seen him retrieve drugs from the area near the car’s

stereo. This testimony is further evidence of Valdez’s knowledge of, and his intent

to possess, the methamphetamine that was found in the vehicle.

We have also considered the record in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.

Ct. 738 (2005). Valdez did not object to the district court’s application of mandatory

sentencing guidelines or a sentence based on facts neither admitted by the defendant

nor proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Reviewing his sentence for plain

error, see United States v. Pirani, No. 03-2871, slip op. at 11 (8th Cir. April 29,

2005) (en banc), we do not believe there is a “reasonable probability” that Valdez

would have received a more favorable sentence if the district court had sentenced him

under the advisory guidelines scheme announced in Booker. His sentence at the low

end of the guidelines is insufficient to establish such a probability, Pirani, No. 03-

2871, slip op. at 12, and we find nothing in the record to indicate that the court would

have imposed a more lenient sentence under the advisory guidelines regime.

“‘[W]here the effect of the error on the result in the district court is uncertain or

indeterminate – where we would have to speculate – the appellant has not met his

burden of showing a reasonable probability that the result would have been different

but for the error.’” Id. at 13 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291,

1301 (11th Cir. 2005)).

After an independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75,

80 (1988), we find no other nonfrivolous issues. We therefore affirm, and we grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw on the condition that counsel complies with Part V of

this court’s Amended Criminal Justice Act Plan.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1569 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/02/2005 Entry ID: 1910423