Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02005/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02005-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Gary Zierke Jr.
Appellant

Document Text:

1The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2005

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Gary Zierke, Jr., *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 9, 2010

Filed: August 24, 2010

___________

Before SMITH, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

A jury found Gary Zierke Jr. ("Zierke") guilty of conspiracy to distribute and

possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 ("Count 1"), and distribution of methamphetamine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1) ("Count 2"). Zierke filed objections to

the presentence investigation report (PSR) objecting, in part, to the quantity of drugs

for which he was found responsible and the resulting base offense level, as well as

a three-level increase for his role in the offense. The district court1 denied Zierke's

objections to the PSR and sentenced him to 360 months' imprisonment as to Count

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
-2-

1 to run concurrent to three years of supervised release as to Count 2. On appeal,

Zierke argues that the district court committed five errors: (1) admitting a recorded

telephone conversation; (2) admitting statements Zierke made to law enforcement

agents; (3) finding that there was sufficient evidence to establish that he was involved

in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine; (4) finding that he was responsible

for 574 grams of methamphetamine; and (5) imposing a three-level leadership

enhancement. We disagree with each of Zierke's contentions and affirm the district

court's judgment.

I. Background

Zierke was charged in a two-count indictment with conspiracy to distribute and

possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine between

October 1, 2007, and April 17, 2008, in violation of § 846, and distribution of

methamphetamine on or about February 14, 2008, in violation of §§ 841(a)(1) and

(b)(1). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the government filed a notice of

intent to introduce evidence at trial. Specifically, the government outlined its intent

to introduce evidence related to law enforcement interviews with Zierke while he was

incarcerated in the Nebraska Department of Corrections in 2006 and 2007. During

those interviews, Zierke told investigators that he planned to sell drugs following his

release from prison. The government thereafter filed a second notice of intent to

introduce Rule 404(b) evidence. In this notice, the government stated its intent to

introduce evidence regarding an October 31, 2008 phone call Zierke made to his son,

Gary Zierke III ("Zierke III") while Zierke was incarcerated in the Douglas County

Department of Corrections. During the phone call, Zierke intimated his desire to harm

two witnesses who would testify against him. 

Zierke's trial lasted four days and culminated with the jury finding Zierke guilty

of Counts 1 and 2. The United States Probation and Pretrial Services office prepared

a PSR. Zierke filed objections to the PSR, objecting, in part, to the quantity of drugs

for which he was found responsible and the resulting base offense level, as well as

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
-3-

a three-level increase for his role in the offense. The district court denied Zierke's

objections and sentenced him to 360 months' imprisonment as to Count 1 to run

concurrent to three years of supervised release as to Count 2.

II. Discussion

A. Admission of Recorded Phone Call 

On appeal, Zierke argues that the district court should have excluded a

recorded telephone conversation where he intimated his desire that his son harm

witnesses that he believed had turned against him. First, Zierke contends that the

phone call encouraged the jurors to fear him and convict him because he is a danger

to society or is simply a bad man. Second, Zierke contends that the phone call was not

relevant to a material issue. Zierke maintains that his dislike of people talking or lying

about him does not provide probative evidence of whether he had entered into an

agreement with others to distribute methamphetamine. Third, Zierke notes that this

call occurred after he had been in jail for more than seven months. Finally, Zierke

contends that the prejudice from introducing the call substantially outweighed any

probative value that the testimony may have provided about whether he was involved

in a drug conspiracy and should have been excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence

403. 

In assessing a district court's evidentiary rulings, we review for an abuse

of discretion. The trial court has broad discretion in determining the

relevancy and admissibility of evidence. Under Rule 403, great

deference is given to a district court's balancing of the relative value of

a piece of evidence and its prejudicial effect. 

United States v. Jiminez, 487 F.3d 1140, 1145 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and

citations omitted).

Zierke's argument is without merit. Rule 403 provides in pertinent part:

"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
2The district court instructed the jury as follows: 

Number one, you may only consider the statements of Gary Zierke, the

defendant, on these recordings. You may only use the statements of the

other people to understand the statements of the defendant, Gary Zierke.

Number two, as I've previously instructed you, transcripts are only aids

and not evidence. It is up to you to determine what was said on the

recordings.

Number three, to the extent the recordings reveal crimes or wrongs not

charged in this case, you may only consider such evidence in

determining whether Gary Zierke, the defendant, had the intent to enter

into the alleged conspiracy charged in Count I.

-4-

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . ." "[E]vidence is not unfairly

prejudicial merely because it tends to prove a defendant's guilt." United States v.

Boesen, 541 F.3d 838, 849 (8th Cir. 2008). In turn, Rule 404(b) provides that

"[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character

of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be

admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,

preparation, [or] plan . . . ." 

"We have ruled a number of times . . . that evidence of death threats against

witnesses or other parties cooperating with the government is generally admissible

against a criminal defendant to show consciousness of guilt of the crime charged."

United States v. DeAngelo, 13 F.3d 1228, 1232 (8th Cir. 1994). "Moreover, we have

noted that as direct evidence of the crime charged, the evidence of threats is not even

Rule 404(b) evidence." Id. Finally, "[t]his court has been reluctant to hold that

evidence was unfairly prejudicial when the district court gave an appropriate

cautionary instruction." United States v. Davis, 154 F.3d 772, 780 (8th Cir. 1998).

The district court gave a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the recordings of

Zierke.2

 Zierke's comments to his son indicated a desire that the son eliminate

witnesses against him. Such testimony is probative of his consciousness of guilt and

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
-5-

also prejudicial. Like the district court, however, we do not consider its probative

value to have been outweighed by unfair prejudice when, as here, the district court

cautioned the jury with a limiting instruction. Accordingly, we hold that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the phone recordings.

B. Zierke's Statement to Police 

Second, Zierke contends that evidence of him attempting to gain a benefit from

officers did not provide any insight as to any material issue. Zierke submits that this

evidence should not have been presented to the jurors and that its prejudicial impact

was immense. In an interview with Special Agent John Dougherty of the Federal

Bureau of Investigation, Zierke expressed his willingness to sell methamphetamine

to aid the government in its gang interdiction efforts. When the government balked

at the proposed undercover buy, Zierke told them that he would proceed to sell the

methamphetamine anyway.

We find that the district court properly admitted the statement under Rule

404(b). "[Rule 404(b)] evidence is admissible if it is (1) relevant to a material issue;

(2) similar in kind and close in time to the crime charged; (3) proven by a

preponderance of the evidence; and (4) if the potential prejudice does not

substantially outweigh its probative value." United States v. Oman, 427 F.3d 1070,

1075 (8th Cir. 2005). First, because Zierke was expressing his intent to engage in a

future methamphetamine deal, the statement was relevant to his intent to engage in

methamphetamine transactions. Second, the testimony was similar in kind and close

in time to the crime charged. Third, sufficient testimonial evidence was presented to

support a finding that Zierke made the statements to law enforcement. Finally, in light

of the other unobjectionable evidence, the potential unfair prejudice from admitting

the statement did not substantially outweigh the statement's probative value.

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 5 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
3

Investigator Bradley Hand of the Nebraska State Patrol testified about a

controlled purchase of methamphetamine from Zierke on February 14, 2008.

Investigator Richard Conrad of the Hall County Sheriff's Department testified about

the warrant search of Zierke's home and evidence obtained. Investigator Mark

Wiegart of the Grand Island Police Department's tactical response team also testified

about the search, including methamphetamine found in Zierke's pocket. Timothy

Vorhees testified about his controlled purchase of drugs from Zierke, as well as prior

purchases. Lance Thomas testified that he purchased methamphetamine from Zierke

several times. Sonia Martinez testified that she sold methamphetamine to Zierke for

him to resell from December 2007 to January 2008. Machelle Sanchez testified that

she supplied Zierke with methamphetamine. Kellie Svoboda testified about selling

Zierke methamphetamine on a daily basis in the months of October and November

of 2007. Zierke III testified that he saw Zierke sell methamphetamine daily in

December 2007 and that he sold it for his father.

-6-

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Third, Zierke contends that the record evidence was insufficient to establish

that he was involved in a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine.

"We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction,

examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict and giving the

verdict the benefit of all reasonable inferences." United States v. Montano, 506 F.3d

1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2007). "We will reverse the jury verdict only if no reasonable

jury could have found [Zierke] guilty." Id.

To support a conspiracy conviction, the government must show that (1) a

conspiracy existed for an illegal purpose; (2) Zierke knew of the conspiracy; and (3)

Zierke intentionally joined the conspiracy. United States v. Becker, 534 F.3d 952, 957

(8th Cir. 2008). In the instant case, at least five witnesses3 testified to directly

engaging in multiple methamphetamine transactions with Zierke. Furthermore, a

government informant completed a controlled purchase with Zierke, which

investigators observed. Finally, police officers executed a search warrant at Zierke's

residence the day of the controlled purchase where they recovered several baggies,

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 6 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
-7-

some of which were empty and others contained drug residue. They also recovered

a glass pipe and a torch—used to smoke methamphetamine—among other items.

Based on this evidence and testimony, we find that sufficient evidence exists to

establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Zierke participated in a conspiracy to

distribute methamphetamine.

D. Drug Quantity Determination

Fourth, Zierke contends that the drug quantity used in his sentencing was

overstated. Specifically, he argues that the district court's calculation included the

methamphetamine that he was buying from one government witness and then selling

to another. Zierke urges that to include both weights would be double counting.

Therefore, Zierke argues that district court should have excluded the 140 grams the

government witness bought from him. Zierke submits that once this 140 grams is

subtracted, the total weight is below 500 grams.

"We review the district court's factual finding of drug quantity for clear error

and will reverse a determination of drug quantity only if the entire record definitely

and firmly convinces us that a mistake has been made." United States v. Minnis, 489

F.3d 325, 329 (8th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

Zierke's drug quantity arguments are also unavailing. "The Guidelines permit

a district court to approximate the quantity of drugs for sentencing purposes where

. . . there has been no direct seizure of drugs directly establishing the relevant

amount." United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835, 851 (8th Cir. 2002). "Moreover, the

court can determine drug quantity using imprecise evidence, so long as the record

reflects a basis for the court's decision." United States v. Zimmer, 299 F.3d 710, 720

(8th Cir. 2002) (internal quotations and citation omitted). In this case, the district

court determined that there was sufficient evidence to support its finding that "the

bare minimum amount of drugs involved here was 574 grams." (Emphasis added.)

Furthermore, the court added, "I do acknowledge that you have to be careful of

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
4Vorhees testified that the night prior to the controlled purchase Vorhees

received approximately a half gram to three quarters of a gram of methamphetamine

from Zierke on a front. Vorhees also testified that he first began purchasing

methamphetamine from Zierke around December 2007. Vorhees further stated that

he bought "8-balls"—3.5 grams—of methamphetamine from Zierke on two

occasions; one purchase occurred during the controlled buy. Vorhees also testified

that he once bought a "teener"—1.75 grams—from Zierke. 

Thomas testified that he began purchasing methamphetamine from Zierke

around Christmas of 2007. Thomas purchased approximately 3.5 grams of

methamphetamine from Zierke on several occasions, but not more than six times. 

Martinez testified that she sold 8-balls of methamphetamine to Zierke daily for

one and a half to two weeks beginning in early November 2007. Martinez further

testified that on four or five occasions, she sold Zierke two 8-balls—7 grams—in a

day. Martinez also explained that on six or seven occasions from December 2007 to

January 3, 2008, she sold Zierke half-ounce amounts of methamphetamine. Martinez

also testified that from December 2007 to January 2, 2008, she sold 8-balls to Zierke.

Finally, Martinez said that on seven or eight occasions from December 2007 to

January 3, 2008, Martinez bought half ounces of methamphetamine from Zierke but

that once or twice it was an 8-ball short.

Sanchez testified thatshe sold methamphetamine to Zierke from approximately

the end of November 2007 until approximately three weeks prior to her arrest on

February 14, 2008. For the first two to three weeks, Sanchez was selling Zierke two

8-balls at varying rates––from more than once per day to once every few days.

Sanchez further testified that starting in December 2008, she sold Zierke half ounces

of methamphetamine at varying frequencies—from daily to every few days. Sanchez

also testified that she sold him one ounce of methamphetamine on a rare occasion.

Sanchez finally stated that she sold Zierke an 8-ball on February 14, 2008.

(continued...)

-8-

double counting." Reviewing the record testimony, it is readily evident that adding

the frequency and quantity of drugs that Zierke trafficked shows that his drug

quantity easily exceed the charged 500 grams.4 Zierke has not shown that the district

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 8 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
4

(...continued)

Svoboda testified that starting in mid-October to November 27, 2008, she sold

Zierke 8-balls ofmethamphetamine daily. Svoboda further testified that Zierke would

often return a second time in the same day. Svoboda also testified that she sold Zierke

half-ounce amounts of methamphetamine on two or three occasions.Finally, Svoboda

said that starting in mid-January, she sold Zierke an 8-ball a couple of times and gram

quantities on other occasions.

Zierke III testified that he saw Zierke selling methamphetamine every day after

he began living with his father. Zierke III also stated that at least as early December

2007, he was selling methamphetamine for Zierke every day. Zierke alone supplied

Zierke III with methamphetamine. Zierke III said that he would sell about an 8-ball

or two per day for Zierke. Zierke III and Zierke also used methamphetamine together.

-9-

court's drug quantity determination was clearly erroneous.

E. Section 3B1.1 Leadership Enhancement

Finally, Zierke contends that while Zierke III's testimony, if believed, may

establish that he supplied his son with methamphetamine, he did not direct, organize,

or supervise his endeavors.

"The district court's factual findings, including its determination of a

defendant's role in the offense, are reviewed for clear error. Its application of the

guidelines to the facts is reviewed de novo." United States v. Vasquez-Rubio, 296

F.3d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 2002) (internal citations omitted). 

Again,Zierke's arguments are unpersuasive. Section3B1.1(b) of the Guidelines

provides that "[i]f the defendant was a manager or supervisor (but not an organizer

or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or was

otherwise extensive, increase by 3 levels." Comment 2 to that section further provides

that "[t]o qualify for an adjustment under this section, the defendant must have been

the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more other participants."

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 9 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496
-10-

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. 2. In this case, the record contains substantial evidence

establishing that Zierke directed Zierke III. First, the record reflects that Zierke

exclusively supplied his son with methamphetamine for subsequent sales. Second,the

record indicates that Zierke controlled the proceeds of Zierke III's drug transactions.

Finally, the phone call between Zierke and Zierke III, as well as Zierke III's

testimony, supports a finding that Zierke controlled, directed, and even intimidated

Zierke III in performance of acts in furtherance of their criminal activity.

III. Conclusion

We affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2005 Page: 10 Date Filed: 08/24/2010 Entry ID: 3696496