Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10959/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10959-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rogelio Benitez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 

USCA11 Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 1 of 6
2

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 

USCA11 Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 2 of 6
3

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. 

USCA11 Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 3 of 6
4

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 

USCA11 Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 4 of 6
5

[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 

USCA11 Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 5 of 6
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.

USCA11 Case: 15-10959 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 6 of 6