Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01348/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01348-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Luis Zuleta
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1348

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Appellee, *

* Appeal From the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Luis Zuleta, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 21, 2005

Filed: November 2, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Luis Zuleta was found guilty of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams

or more of methamphetamine. He was sentenced by the district court1

 to 110 months

of imprisonment. On appeal, Zuleta contends there was insufficient evidence to

support his conviction and his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Appellate Case: 05-1348 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970233
2

While evidence at trial showed that over nine kilograms of methamphetamine

was found in Zuleta’s truck cab, the district court held that Zuleta’s conviction and

sentence would be limited to the quantity alleged by the government in its first

indictment, which was 500 grams or more.

-2-

Background

Zuleta was driving his tractor/trailer unit on Interstate 80 in Nebraska on

September 25, 2003. As directed by a highway sign, he pulled his truck into a weigh

station. The state patrol officers on duty initially conducted a level 3 inspection,

which involved a review of the records that a driver is expected to keep. Thereafter

and with Zuleta’s consent, the officers entered the trailer and the truck cab and

inspected both. In one of the storage compartments under the lower bunk of the

sleeper compartment, officers found a suitcase containing a pair of pants, a shirt, and

several packages of methamphetamine.

Zuleta was arrested and charged in federal court with possession with intent to

distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(viii).

The case went to trial after Zuleta's unsuccessful motion to suppress. Zuleta called

no witnesses during trial and did not take the stand on his own behalf. The jury found

Zuleta guilty of possession with intent to distribute 500 or more grams of

methamphetamine.2

Shortly before sentencing, Zuleta admitted to his illegal conduct and met with

the prosecutors to provide information that would allow him to qualify for a safety

valve reduction. He stated that he had agreed to take a package from California to

Des Moines, Iowa for $2,000. He had accepted the package and permitted a third

party, Paisano, to place the package in the sleeping compartment of the truck, which

he was driving for a third party. Zuleta delivered the package to Des Moines, Iowa,

and was only paid $1,000. Zuleta returned to California and purchased his own truck.

He was then contacted again, and asked to make a second delivery. Again, Paisano

Appellate Case: 05-1348 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970233
-3-

placed a suitcase inside of Zuleta’s truck and promised Zuleta that he would pay him

$2,000 for the trip in addition to the $1,000 still owed to him. It was on the second

trip that Zuleta was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute 500

grams or more of methamphetamine. At sentencing, the district court granted Zuleta

a safety valve reduction but denied his request to be considered as a minor

participant. It then imposed a sentence of 110 months of imprisonment, a sentence

in the middle of Zuleta’s guidelines range of 97 to 121 months. This appeal followed.

Discussion

We review the district court’s denial of Zuleta’s motion of judgment of

acquittal based on the sufficiency of the evidence by viewing the evidence in the light

most favorable to the verdict, and accept as established all reasonable inferences

supporting the verdict. United States v. Hayes, 391 F.3d 958, 961 (8th Cir. 2004).

The verdict must be upheld if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find the

defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. U.S. v. Cabrera, 116 F.3d 1243, 1245

(8th Cir. 1997). 

To obtain a conviction, the government had to prove that Zuleta was in

possession of methamphetamine, that he knew he was in possession of

methamphetamine, and that he intended to distribute it. 21 U.S.C. § 841; United

States v. Sanders, 341 F.3d 809, 816 (8th Cir. 2003). Zuleta does not challenge the

government’s proof on the element of intent. Rather, he contends that the

government failed to establish that he was in knowing possession of the

methamphetamine found in his vehicle. 

We have no hesitancy in concluding that Zuleta possessed methamphetamine.

Although it was not found on his person, it was in a suitcase in his truck, and he was

the sole occupant of the truck. Sanders, 341 F.3d at 816 (noting that constructive

possession may be proved through evidence that a person maintains “knowledge and

Appellate Case: 05-1348 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970233
-4-

ownership, dominion, or control over the contraband itself, or dominion over the

vehicle in which the contraband is concealed” (quoting Ortega v. United States, 270

F.3d 540, 545 (8th Cir. 2001))). Moreover, the jury could properly infer that Zuleta

knew that the methamphetamine was in his possession. First, we note that the

methamphetamine was not secreted in a hidden compartment. Rather, it was found

in a suitcase kept in a storage compartment below his bunk, and Zuleta’s documents

indicated that he inspected his vehicle during the trip. Further, Zuleta’s travel

documents and comments at the time of his arrest were inconsistent with the view that

he was en route with a legitimate load. The driver’s copy of the shipping order had

been altered, which signaled to the officers that Zuleta wanted to conceal what had

been written on the order. No one signed for Zuleta’s load, and there was no date

indicating when it was picked up or when the load was to be delivered. Finally,

Zuleta apparently attempted to disassociate himself from the load by telling officers

that his boss had picked it up and had it waiting for Zuleta to transport. Given the

totality of this evidence, it was not unreasonable for a jury to conclude that Zuleta

knowingly possessed the methamphetamine.

We next consider whether Zuleta’s 110-month sentence is unreasonable when

viewed in light of the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v.

Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738, 765 (2005). To do so, we “must first determine the

appropriate guidelines sentencing range, since that range does remain an important

factor to be considered in the imposition of a sentence.” United States v. Haack, 403

F.3d 997, 1002-03 (8th Cir. 2005). In so doing, we “continue to examine de novo

whether the district court correctly interpreted and applied the guidelines,” and

“continue to review findings of fact for clear error.” United States v. Mashek, 406

F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir. 2005). If the district court erred in its guidelines

determinations, we will remand without reaching the question of whether the ultimate

sentence is reasonable. Id. If the guidelines were correctly applied, however, we

nonetheless review the sentence to determine if it is unreasonable. United States v.

Archuleta, 412 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2005).

Appellate Case: 05-1348 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970233
-5-

Zuleta specifically challenges the district court’s refusal to grant him an offense

level reduction in recognition of his minor role as courier. United States Sentencing

Guidelines section 3B1.2 provides for such a reduction when a defendant played a

minor or minimal role in the offense. Such a determination is typically factual, and

we thus review for clear error. United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086, 1090 (8th

Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. Hale, 1 F.3d 691, 694 (8th Cir. 1993)). After

reviewing the record, we cannot say the district court clearly erred. Prior to

sentencing, Zuleta admitted that he had acted as a courier on more than one occasion.

We have recognized that a person’s status as a courier does not necessarily establish

entitlement to the adjustment. Alverez, 235 F.3d at 1090. As such, we find no error

in the denial of a role adjustment, and further find the 110-month sentence is not

unreasonable when considered in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.

For the reasons stated above, we affirm Zuleta’s conviction and sentence.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1348 Page: 5 Date Filed: 11/02/2005 Entry ID: 1970233