Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04216/USCOURTS-ca8-05-04216-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aaron Duane Rees
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-4216

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Aaron Duane Rees, *

*

Appellant. *

__________

Submitted: May 16, 2006

Filed: May 23, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Aaron Rees (Rees) appeals the district court’s1

 denial of Rees’s motion for

judgment of acquittal or new trial following Rees’s methamphetamine manufacturing

convictions. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A jury convicted Rees of one count of conspiracy to manufacture in excess of

500 grams of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 21

Appellate Case: 05-4216 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2006 Entry ID: 2047813
-2-

U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A)(viii) and 846, and one count of use of a minor to manufacture

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 861(a)(1). Count one was based in

part on police recovery from Rees’s home of two quantities of waste products, which

together weighed in excess of 500 grams and contained minimal, but detectable

amounts of methamphetamine. Following his convictions, Rees moved for a

judgment of acquittal or for a new trial. As part of his argument, Rees first conceded

the waste products found at his residence could be used, as a matter of law, to support

his conviction:

The Courts have held that the measure of a mixture or substance

containing controlled substances, including methamphetamine, includes

the total weight of the mixture or substance, and is not limited to the

amount of usable drug. United States v. Kuenstler, 325 F.3d 1015, 1023

(8th Cir. 2003); Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453, 461-62

(1991).

Rees argued, however, the evidence was insufficient to show he could have

reasonably foreseen being held accountable for the mixtures found at his residence.

See, e.g., United States v. Davidson, 195 F.3d 402, 410 (8th Cir. 1999) (Guidelines

sentencing) (holding “a defendant in a drug conspiracy case is responsible for all

contraband within the scope of criminal activity jointly undertaken by the defendant

and reasonably foreseeable to her” (internal quotation and alterations omitted)). Rees

rested his argument on a government witness’s testimony that she had rarely, if ever,

encountered a methamphetamine manufacturing byproduct like one of the waste

products found at Rees’s residence, thus no reasonable jury would find Rees could

have foreseen that byproduct being used to support his conviction.

The district court denied the motion. Rees now argues, contrary to his

concession before the district court, that courts may not include post-production

Appellate Case: 05-4216 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2006 Entry ID: 2047813
-3-

waste product, such as that found at his residence, as part of a “mixture or

substance”containing methamphetamine.

II. DISCUSSION

Following a conviction, we review de novo questions of sufficiency of the

evidence, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government.

United States v. Brooks, 174 F.3d 950, 954 (8th Cir. 1999). “An argument not raised

below cannot be raised on appeal for the first time unless the obvious result would be

a plain miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Gutierrez, 130 F.3d 330, 332 (8th

Cir. 1997) (internal quotation omitted).

We hold Rees waived his argument that post-production waste cannot be

considered as part of a “mixture or substance” containing methamphetamine

supporting a conviction under section 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). While Rees did raise an

insufficiency of the evidence claim before the district court, Rees rested his argument

on the rarity, and thus unforeseeability, of the drug manufacturing byproducts found

at his residence. However, Rees specifically and unequivocally conceded the

substances found at his residence could be used to support his conviction. Because

Rees not only failed to raise his “mixture or substance” argument, but in fact

expressly conceded the argument before the district court, we will not address it.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court’s denial of Rees’s motion for

judgment of acquittal or new trial, and affirm Rees’s convictions.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-4216 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2006 Entry ID: 2047813