Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03782/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03782-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Winston Gordon
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3782

___________

United States of America, * 

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States 

v. * District Court for the 

 * Eastern District of Missouri. 

Winston Gordon, *

 * 

Defendant - Appellant. * 

___________

Submitted: October 15, 2007

 Filed: December 26, 2007

 ____________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. 

 ____________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. 

A jury convicted Winston Gordon of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 100

kilograms of marijuana, and the district court1

 sentenced him to 292 months. Gordon

appeals, challenging an evidentiary ruling, a jury instruction, the sufficiency of the

evidence, and his sentence. We affirm.

Gordon came to the attention of the Phelps County Sheriff's Department as a

result of its traffic stop on January 13, 2004 of a tractor trailer driven by Ira Helton.

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696
-2-

Helton consented to a search which led to the discovery of boxes which appeared to

contain marijuana, and the truck was then taken to the sheriff's department in Rolla,

Missouri. A thorough search uncovered twenty four boxes of marijuana interspersed

among a shipment of seafood. Each of the boxes of marijuana weighed approximately

fifty pounds, with a total weight of 1471 pounds or 667 kilograms. After finding the

marijuana and contacting Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, Detective

Mark Williams noticed there were several incoming calls from "Winston" on Helton's

mobile phone. The next morning Helton agreed to cooperate with the authorities, and

he explained that he had been hired by Winston Gordon in 2003 to drive loads of

seafood and marijuana across the country.

Helton agreed to try to lure Gordon to Rolla, and he placed several recorded

calls to Gordon and his wife, Roberta Allen. Helton told them that he had been

arrested in Rolla after a prostitute claimed he had raped her but the authorities had not

searched the truck. He urged them to retrieve the truck from Rolla as soon as

possible. After the sheriff's department had moved the truck to a local tow lot, the

operator of the lot notified Detective Williams that Roberta Allen had called and said

that Emmett Emil Lee was on his way to pick up the truck. Lee flew from Chicago

to St. Louis and took a taxi from there to Rolla, where he was arrested and admitted

that Gordon had sent him to Missouri. At this point DEA agents took Helton and Lee,

who is the uncle of Roberta Allen, into federal custody. A federal grand jury

subsequently indicted Gordon, Allen, Lee, and Helton for conspiracy to distribute

marijuana. (Lee was also charged with interstate travel in aid of the conspiracy.)

Helton pled guilty, and based on information he provided after his indictment, a grand

jury returned a superseding indictment against Gordon, Allen, and Lee, and arrest

warrants were issued for Gordon and Allen. At trial Allen and Lee were acquitted, but

Gordon was found guilty. 

Helton testified at trial that his first contact with Gordon had been facilitated by

"Donald," a trucker with whom he had previously worked in St. Louis. Donald told

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696
-3-

Helton he had a new job as a driver transporting marijuana, and he arranged for

Helton to meet Gordon. During that meeting Helton indicated that he was interested

in driving for Gordon's business, Swing Easy Transportation Company. Gordon

arranged to pay Helton approximately $550 per week and $1000 per shipment of

marijuana. The two met the following month at a truck stop near East St. Louis,

Illinois and then drove a truck loaded with seafood to California. They delivered the

seafood and picked up a new load destined for the East Coast. On their way east they

stopped at a truck stop in Phoenix, Arizona. There they unhitched the trailer and then

drove the tractor to a residence where Gordon left Helton. Gordon was gone for an

hour, and on his return Helton saw there were twelve boxes of marijuana inside the

tractor. He and Gordon later loaded the fifty pound boxes into the trailer at a truck

stop outside of Phoenix.

From Phoenix the pair headed to Chicago, where they met "Kojak" and "Earl"

who unloaded a few boxes of marijuana at a multifamily residence, one unit of which

was occupied by Lee. Gordon and Helton continued from Chicago to Hartford,

Connecticut where the remainder of the marijuana was delivered to "Fox." The pair

delivered the seafood to cities throughout the upper East Coast, then picked up a new

load of seafood to be delivered to California. On the drive back to California, they

stopped in Hartford where they picked up a bag of money from Fox which they left

in Chicago.

Helton made approximately nine similar trips from California to the East Coast

and back on behalf of Gordon. Eight of those trips involved picking up, transporting,

and delivering anywhere from twelve to twenty four boxes of marijuana, from Arizona

to places in the middle and east of the country; the proceeds were transported to

Chicago. The approximate total weight of the marijuana Helton testified to having

transported and distributed, with or at the direction of Gordon, was 6071 pounds or

2754 kilograms. He also testified that on these trips he had seen Gordon carrying a

9 mm pistol in his briefcase numerous times; such a pistol was seized from Gordon's

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696
-4-

house after his arrest. Helton testified that he also made seafood and marijuana

deliveries with his former coworker Donald, with Gordon's nephew Ismael Lamont

Kilgore, and with Lee. On one trip he delivered boxes of marijuana to "King Dad" in

Philadelphia instead of to Fox in Hartford.

Helton and Lee made their final circuit trip with the usual marijuana pickup in

Arizona and dropoffs in Chicago and on the East Coast. On their way back to

California Helton dropped Lee in Chicago and continued on by himself. He delivered

the seafood in California and picked up a new load, then stopped in Tucson for twelve

boxes of marijuana and in Phoenix for twelve more. While en route to Chicago, he

was stopped in Phelps County, Missouri, and 667 kilograms of marijuana were seized

from his trailer.

About two months earlier, Gordon had been stopped for speeding in Colorado

by Geary County deputy Willie Wallenberg and taken into custody for driving on a

suspended license. At trial Deputy Wallenberg testified that he found $10460 cash in

Gordon's truck. A drug dog brought to the scene alerted inside the vehicle and to the

money, and the money and vehicle were impounded. Gordon was later released with

his money when no drugs were found on him or in the vehicle. Gordon's attorney

tried to cross examine Deputy Wallenberg about statements he had made about the

cash in an affidavit. The government objected that the question was outside the scope

of its direct examination which had been limited to the facts of Gordon's arrest. The

district court sustained the objection over Gordon's argument that his inquiry was

permissible under Fed. R. Evid. 106 and the rule of completeness. 

Gordon moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the government's case

and again at the conclusion of the evidence. The motions were denied, and the district

court instructed the jury on the greater offense of conspiracy to distribute in excess of

1000 kilograms of marijuana, as well as two lesser included offenses of conspiracy to

distribute in excess of 100 kilograms or to distribute any amount of marijuana. The

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 4 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696
2

Gordon argues that under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), his maximum sentence should have

been 151 months, the guideline maximum for conspiracy to sell under 1000 kilograms

of marijuana with a criminal history category III. U.S.S.G. §§ 2D1.1(5), 5A. There

was no Sixth Amendment violation here, however, for facts which do not increase a

sentence beyond the statutory maximum may be found by the court by a

preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 327-28

(2005).

-5-

jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the greater charge against Gordon

but found him guilty of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms, making

it unnecessary for it to consider the other lesser included offense charge. 

At sentencing the district court attributed 1000 to 3000 kilograms of marijuana

to Gordon, resulting in a base offense level of 32 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(4). It

then added two levels for possession of a firearm in connection with a drug offense,

under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1), and four levels for being the organizer or leader of the

drug conspiracy, under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). Gordon's adjusted total offense level of

38 combined with his criminal category III resulted in an advisory guideline

sentencing range of 292 to 365 months. The statutory range of punishment for

conspiracy to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana is five to forty years or

60 to 480 months. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(vii). The court sentenced Gordon to

serve 292 months.2

Gordon appeals, objecting to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal,

to a jury instruction on the lesser included offense, the limitation on his questioning

of Deputy Wallenberg, and his sentence.

Gordon argues that the district court erred by not allowing him to cross examine

Deputy Wallenberg about potentially exculpatory statements in his affidavit. He cites

Rule 106 for the proposition that after one party inquires into a portion of a statement

or writing, the other party must be allowed to show the full context by inquiring into

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696
-6-

the rest of the statement. See, e.g., United States v. King, 351 F.3d 859, 866 (8th Cir.

2003). The government argues that Rule 106 does not apply because it limited its

examination of Wallenberg to the facts and events of Gordon's arrest without inquiring

into any statements or writings and that the question would have called for

inadmissible hearsay in any event. 

We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion,

including those regarding the scope of cross examination. See, e.g., General Elec. Co.

v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141 (1997); King, 351 F.3d at 866. On direct examination the

government asked Deputy Wallenberg to describe the events of Gordon's arrest and

release. Wallenberg testified that he found $10460 in Gordon's vehicle, that a drug

dog had alerted to the inside of the vehicle and the money, and that Gordon had been

released after no drugs were found on him or in the vehicle. That was all. Rule 106

applies only to writings or recorded statements, not to acts or conversations. See

Ahlberg v. Chrysler Corp., 481 F.3d 630, 636 (8th Cir. 2007). Because the

government did not introduce Deputy Wallenberg's affidavit or inquire into it, Rule

106 has no application here. See United States v. Edwards, 159 F.3d 1117, 1127 n.6

(8th Cir. 1998). The district court acted within its discretion in limiting Gordon's

cross examination to exclude hearsay statements.

Gordon argues the district court erred by denying his motion for judgment of

acquittal, claiming that Helton was such an incredible witness that no reasonable jury

could have credited his testimony and that without it there was insufficient evidence

upon which to rest a guilty verdict. A district court's denial of a motion for judgment

of acquittal is reviewed de novo, with all evidence viewed in the light most favorable

to the government. United States v. Hilliard, 490 F.3d 635, 640 (8th Cir. 2007). The

jury assessed Helton's credibility, and no extraordinary circumstances exist which

would allow us to review its credibility determination. See, e.g., United States v.

Milam, 494 F.3d 640, 643 (8th Cir. 2007). The government offered evidence at trial

that Gordon was involved in a conspiracy to distribute marijuana, 667 kilograms of

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696
-7-

which had been seized from the truck driven by Helton. Helton testified that he had

distributed over 2700 kilograms of marijuana with Gordon or at his direction. After

Helton's arrest, Gordon called his phone several times and was later recorded having

conversations with him about the truck. Viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government, there was sufficient evidence for conviction, and the

district court did not err in denying Gordon's motion for a judgment of acquittal.

Gordon also argues that the district court should not have instructed the jury on

the lesser included offense of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 100 kilograms of

marijuana. He suggests that because the jury did not convict him of the greater

offense of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 1000 kilograms of marijuana, Helton's

testimony about his eight delivery trips must have been found not credible and that his

testimony about the 667 kilograms seized on January 13, 2004 should therefore not

have been credited either. He asserts that "[i]f the jury had not been given the lesser

included offense instruction, it would not have found Mr. Gordon guilty." A district

court's decision regarding whether to give a lesser included offense instruction is

reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Williford, 309 F.3d 507, 509 (8th

Cir. 2002). 

A jury instruction on a lesser included offense is appropriate upon a proper

request if the lesser offense elements are identical to part of those of the greater

offense, there was evidence which would justify conviction of the lesser offense, the

proof on the element differentiating the two crimes was sufficiently in dispute so that

the jury might consistently find the defendant innocent of the greater and guilty of the

lesser included offense, and where the instruction could have been requested by either

party. United States v. Dodd, 473 F.3d 873, 876 (8th Cir. 2007). The government's

proof for the lesser included offense of conspiracy to distribute in excess of 100

kilograms of marijuana included the actual seizure of 667 kilograms of marijuana plus

the testimony regarding Gordon's involvement in the conspiracy to distribute

marijuana. The government's proof for the greater offense of conspiracy was limited

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696
-8-

to Helton's testimony regarding the eight marijuana delivery trips he allegedly made

prior to January 2004, with or under the direction of Gordon. Gordon vigorously

contested the veracity of this testimony, and it was not unreasonable for the jury to

find that Helton's testimony about those trips was insufficient to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that Gordon was guilty of the greater offense. The district court did

not abuse its discretion in instructing the jury on the lesser included offense. 

Gordon challenges the district court's calculation of his base offense level and

its enhancements for possession of a dangerous weapon and his role in the offense.

The district court's application of the sentencing guidelines is reviewed de novo and

its factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Davidson, 437 F.3d

737, 739-40 (8th Cir. 2006). 

A sentencing court's drug quantity calculations are factual findings and are

therefore reviewed for clear error. E.g., United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 461

(8th Cir. 2003). The district court may consider as relevant conduct all drugs that the

government shows by a preponderance of the evidence were a part of the same course

of conduct or common scheme as the conspiracy, even where the defendant was

acquitted of such conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Tirado, 313 F.3d 437, 440 (8th

Cir. 2002); United States v. Jimenez-Villasenor, 270 F.3d 554, 561 (8th Cir. 2001);

see also Booker, 543 U.S. at 254-55. Helton testified that he transported over 2700

kilograms of marijuana at the direction of Gordon, and this quantity was reflected in

the presentence investigation report (PSR) recommendation that 1000 to 3000

kilograms of marijuana be attributed to Gordon. The district court found that the

government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Gordon conspired to

distribute between 1000 and 3000 kilograms of marijuana and adopted the PSR,

overruling Gordon's objections that his base offense level should have been 24 based

on 100 kilograms of marijuana. The district court did not clearly err in holding

Gordon responsible for 1000 to 3000 kilograms of marijuana. 

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696
-9-

Gordon also objects to his sentencing enhancements. Helton saw a 9 mm pistol

in Gordon's briefcase on several occasions during their drug trips, and such a pistol

was seized from Gordon's residence upon his arrest. Based on this evidence the

district court did not clearly err in finding that Gordon possessed a dangerous weapon

in connection with this offense or in imposing a two level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v. Gillispie, 487 F.3d 1158, 1162 (8th Cir.

2007) (enhancement should be applied where weapon present unless clearly

improbable connection with offense exists); United States v. Dillard, 370 F.3d 800,

804 (8th Cir. 2004) (preponderance of evidence required for enhancement under §

2D1.1(b)(1)). 

A defendant who assumes a leadership or organizing role in the conspiracy such

as "recruiting others, determining the prices or location of sales, and so forth" may be

found to be an organizer or leader of the conspiracy. United States v. PlancarteVazquez, 450 F.3d 848, 854 (8th Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Morin, 437 F.3d

777, 781 (8th Cir. 2006) (enhancement requires at least five people involved in

operation but only one need be under defendant's direction). The government offered

evidence that Gordon had recruited Helton into the conspiracy, had determined the

price he would be paid and the location of marijuana sales, and had overseen and

directed the actions of at least six or seven people in respect to the conspiracy. The

district court did not err in finding that Gordon was an organizer or leader of the

conspiracy or in enhancing his offense level accordingly by four levels pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).

The district court's calculation of Gordon's total offense level under the advisory

sentencing guidelines was based upon findings which were supported by a

preponderance of the evidence. Gordon's 292 month sentence was within the statutory

range for the crime of which he was convicted and was not unreasonable. 

For these reasons we affirm the judgment of the district court.

____________________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3782 Page: 9 Date Filed: 12/26/2007 Entry ID: 3385696