Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01657/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01657-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesus Olivas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1657

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Jesus Olivas, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 12, 2005

Filed: September 27, 2005

___________

Before RILEY, LAY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The Government charged Jesus Olivas with conspiracy to distribute five

hundred grams or more of methamphetamine. At trial, seven coconspirators and a

narcotics officer testified against Olivas, and the jury convicted him. The

presentence report (PSR) attributed 15.08 kilograms of methamphetamine to Olivas

and recommended an enhancement for obstruction of justice because Olivas had

intimidated or threatened a witness. Olivas objected and argued he was entitled to a

jury finding on drug quantity and the obstruction enhancement under Blakely v.

Appellate Case: 05-1657 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956436
*

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

-2-

Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The district court*

 held evidentiary hearings in

November 2004 and February 2005. Before the latter hearing, the Supreme Court

decided United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The court took judicial

notice of the trial transcript and stated there was “ample evidence that [Olivas] was

responsible for over 15 kilograms of methamphetamine.” The court also found

Olivas obstructed justice, citing one witnesses’ trial testimony and another’s lack of

memory. At sentencing, the district court acknowledged the advisory nature of the

Sentencing Guidelines after Booker, considered the sentencing factors set forth in 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a), adopted the PSR, and sentenced Olivas to 360 months in prison.

Olivas appeals arguing the evidence was insufficient to convict him. Viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to government, we conclude a reasonable jury

could have found Olivas guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. GalavizLuna, No. 04-1156, 2005 WL 1812806, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2005). Contrary to

Olivas’s assertion, the government presented sufficient evidence to prove he

knowingly and voluntarily entered into and participated in a conspiracy to distribute

methamphetamine. Several cooperating witnesses testified they received pound

quantities of methamphetamine either directly from Olivas or under circumstances

strongly suggesting he was the supplier, and then resold it to others. See id. Olivas

attacks the witnesses’ credibility and cites their motive to cooperate. Issues of

witness credibility and motive are for a jury to decide, however. Id. 

Olivas also challenges his sentence asserting the district court committed error

in calculating drug quantity and finding Olivas obstructed justice. According to

Olivas, he had a Sixth Amendment right to a jury determination of these issues under

Blakely and Booker. In Booker, the Supreme Court held the Sentencing Guidelines

ran afoul of the Sixth Amendment in requiring judges, based on judge-found facts,

Appellate Case: 05-1657 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956436
-3-

to impose more severe sentences than could have been imposed based solely on facts

found by the jury or admitted by the defendant. 125 S. Ct. at 749-50, 756. To cure

the Sixth Amendment problem, the Court declared the Guidelines “effectively

advisory,” but directed district courts to consult the Guidelines when sentencing. Id.

at 757, 767. There is no Booker error if the district court calculates the proper

Guidelines sentencing range, treats the Guidelines as advisory, and imposes a

reasonable sentence. United States v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 551 (8th Cir. 2005) (en

banc). After Booker, we continue to review a district court’s application of the

Guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Salter,

No. 04-3137, 2005 WL 1875709, at *1 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 2005). 

In this case, the district court’s findings raise no Sixth Amendment problem

because the district court treated the Guidelines as advisory rather than mandatory.

Contrary to Olivas’s assertion, the findings are not clearly erroneous. Taken as a

whole, the testimony at trial established Olivas distributed more than fifteen

kilograms of methamphetamine. Jose Chavarria testified he obtained one to two

pound quantities of methamphetamine from Olivas 10-15 times (for a maximum total

of 30 pounds or13.63 kilograms). On redirect, he admitted he told officers he had

obtained methamphetamine from Olivas 25-30 times (for a maximum total of 60

pounds or 27.27 kilograms), and he testified to the lower amount because he wanted

to be conservative. Jason Salava testified he was with Chavarria when he picked up

a pound of methamphetamine from Olivas seven to eleven times. Maria Garza

testified she obtained a pound of methamphetamine from Nicholas Cruz on three

occasions (for a total of three pounds or 1.3636 kilograms) after seeing him jump into

Olivas’s vehicle with Olivas inside and then exit with the drugs. Likewise, Hugo

Flores testified he obtained pound quantities of methamphetamine from Cruz. Flores

testified he worked at a welding company with Olivas and Cruz, and when Cruz did

not have any methamphetamine for Flores, he would get into Olivas’s vehicle with

Olivas then return with methamphetamine. Thus, the testimony of Chavarria, Garza,

and Flores established Olivas distributed more than fifteen kilograms of

Appellate Case: 05-1657 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956436
-4-

methamphetamine, and the district court did not double count the quantities testified

about by Chavarria and Salava. 

Further, the district court did not commit clear error in finding Olivas

obstructed justice. The obstruction enhancement applies when a defendant directly

or indirectly threatens, intimidates, or otherwise unlawfully influences a witness.

U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; United States v. Carillo, 380 F.3d 411, 414 (8th Cir. 2004). The

district court noted Kevin Glaser, who had been incarcerated with Olivas before trial,

testified Olivas had told him Nicholas Cruz would not testify because someone had

gotten to him and threatened harm to his family. The court observed that at trial, Cruz

could not recall any of the information he had previously supplied to police. 

Last, Olivas contends his sentence is unreasonable. Because the district court

correctly applied the Guidelines in deciding Olivas’s sentencing range and properly

considered the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), we conclude his sentence

is reasonable. See United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1082 (8th Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, we affirm Olivas’s conviction and sentence. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1657 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/27/2005 Entry ID: 1956436