Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03050/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert L. Abbott
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

*

The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3050

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Robert L. Abbott, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2004

Filed: May 5, 2004

___________

Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Robert L. Abbott of conspiracy to distribute five kilograms

or more of cocaine and of aiding and abetting the distribution of five kilograms or

more of cocaine. After a hearing, the district court*

 sentenced Abbott to 360 months

in prison. Abbott appeals his conviction and sentence, and we affirm.

Appellate Case: 03-3050 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763904 
-2-

Abbott first contends the district court committed error in denying his motion

for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to convict him of

conspiracy to distribute cocaine. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the verdict and giving the verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences, we

conclude a reasonable jury could find all the elements of the offense beyond a

reasonable doubt. United States v. Nambo-Barajas, 338 F.3d 956, 960 (8th Cir. 2003).

To convict Abbott of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, the government had to prove

there was an agreement to distribute cocaine, Abbott knew of the agreement, and

Abbott knowingly participated in the agreement. Id. at 960-61. 

In this case, the evidence amply supports the conclusion that Abbott conspired

with Juan Guevara to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Government

witnesses testified they bought cocaine directly and indirectly from Abbott and

Guevara, saw Abbott weigh out cocaine for distribution, and saw Guevara bringing

large amounts of cocaine to Abbott’s house. Witnesses also stated Abbott and

Geuvara traveled to Texas together to obtain better cocaine for their customers. They

both tested the cocaine’s quality and ordered one kilogram, then five kilograms from

a Colombian source. The jury’s decision to believe the witnesses’ testimony is

virtually unreviewable on appeal. United States v. Cuervo, 354 F.3d 969, 984 (8th

Cir. 2004). Further, the witnesses’ testimony was supported by exhibits of telephone,

travel, and hotel records. Because a reasonable jury could conclude beyond a

reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed between Abbott and Guevara, the district

court properly denied Abbott’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Nambo-Barajas,

338 F.3d at 961. 

Abbott next contends that in calculating the quantity of drugs attributable to

him for the purpose of determining his base offense level, the district court

erroneously found Abbott responsible for the distribution of fifty kilograms of

cocaine sold to one of the witnesses by Guevara. See U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) (drug

quantity table). In the case of jointly undertaken criminal activity, a defendant is held

Appellate Case: 03-3050 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763904 
-3-

responsible for “all reasonably foreseeable acts and omissions of others in furtherance

of the jointly undertaken criminal activity.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Thus, in a drug

conspiracy, the district court may consider amounts from drug transactions in which

the defendant was not directly involved if the transactions were part of the same

course of conduct or scheme. United States v. Atkins, 250 F.3d 1203, 1212 (8th Cir.

2001). Here, the district court did not commit clear error in finding Guevara’s sale

of fifty kilograms of cocaine was in furtherance of the conspiracy and reasonably

foreseeable to Abbott. See id. In addition to the general trial testimony about the

connection between Guevara and Abbot and their joint drug activity, the purchaser

testified he tested cocaine with Guevara outside Abbott’s house, then twice bought

cocaine from Guevara in the vicinity of Abbott’s house. 

Abbott also asserts the district court should not have increased his base offense

level by three for being a manager or supervisor of criminal activity that involved five

or more participants or was otherwise extensive. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). A

manager or supervisor need only have managed or supervised one other conspirator

in a single transaction. United States v. Zimmer, 299 F.3d 710, 724 (8th Cir. 2002).

The district court did not commit clear error in finding Abbott was a manager or

supervisor of a drug conspiracy that involved at least five participants. See id. at 723.

The evidence at trial showed there were five or more conspirators and Abbott acted

in a managerial role by being one of the principal suppliers, deciding where cocaine

sales would occur, directly supervising three men who recruited customers for him,

and fronting cocaine to his larger customers. 

Abbott last asserts the district court should not have increased his offense level

by two for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. The obstruction of justice

enhancement applies to a defendant who commits perjury. Id. n.4(b). Contrary to all

of the government witnesses’ testimony, Abbott testified at trial and denied he had

any involvement in distributing drugs with the witnesses. Given the conflict between

Abbott’s testimony and the other evidence at trial, the district court found Abbott

Appellate Case: 03-3050 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763904 
-4-

perjured himself. This finding is not clearly erroneous. United States v. Harris, 352

F.3d 362, 366 (8th Cir. 2003). The district court thus properly increased Abbott’s

sentence for obstruction of justice.

Accordingly, we affirm Abbott’s conviction and sentence. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3050 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/05/2004 Entry ID: 1763904