United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3488

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Giovany Frank Guzman

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

 ____________

 Submitted: November 15, 2019

Filed: January 2, 2020

____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge 

A jury found Giovany Frank Guzman guilty on three counts: conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(B), and 846; conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 960(a)(3), 960(b)(2)(B), and 963; and attempted possession

with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B),
and 846. The district court1

sentenced Guzman to 190 months’imprisonment on each

count, to run concurrently. Guzman appeals his sentence, challenging his drugquantity based offense level and the role-enhancement imposed under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines) § 3B1.1(b). Guzman also challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. We affirm. 

Following a trip to Mexico with Oscar Gomez, Guzman’s uncle and codefendant, Guzman sent Gomez the names and addresses of four individuals. These

addresses were provided to him by Shelby Williams, another co-defendant. On

January 24, 2017, Customs and Border Protection intercepted a suspicious package

sent to one of the addresses Guzman had texted to Gomez. The package was labeled

as “fiber stairs,” but after further inspection, Customs and Border Protection

discovered that the package contained 2,990 grams of cocaine. The package wasthen

returned to UPS for a controlled delivery. After communicating with Guzman,

Williams picked up the package fromthe UPS store and delivered the package to him. 

Later that evening, law enforcement executed a search warrant at Gomez’s house and

seized the package. 

Around the same time, a second package of “stairs for aerobics” was

intercepted by Customs and Border Protection. The package matched one of the

names and addresses Guzman had texted to Gomez and contained two kilograms of

cocaine. No controlled delivery was attempted of this package. A third and final

package, weighing 8.7 kilograms, was picked up at a FedEx location in Moline, Iowa. 

Law enforcement did not seize or inspect this package because they did not learn of

its delivery until later in the investigation. The package’s description, “aerobic step,”

was similar to the other two intercepted packages and matched an address provided

to Guzman by Williams. 

1The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Southern District of Iowa. 

-2-
At sentencing, the district court, adopting the presentence report (PSR),

attributed all three packages to Guzman, found that the amount of cocaine involved

exceeded five kilograms, and held that Guzman’s base offense level was 30. See

U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(a)(5), (c)(5). The district court also applied a three-level

enhancement to Guzman’s base offense level as a manager or supervisor of Williams. 

See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b). The court determined that Guzman’stotal offense level was

35, that his criminal history category was IV, and that his advisory sentencing range

was 235 to 293 months’ imprisonment. 

Guzman first arguesthat insufficient evidence exists to support his convictions

on all counts. He contendsthat the government failed to prove that he had knowledge

of the contents of any of the packages. 

In reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims, we view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the government. United States v. Vinton, 429 F.3d 811, 815

(8th Cir. 2005). “We must uphold the verdict if any reasonable jury could have found

the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting United States

v. McDougal, 137 F.3d 547, 553 (8th Cir. 1998)). The evidence supports the jury’s

finding that Guzman knew that the packages contained cocaine and knew the purpose

of the agreement in which he had joined. The government presented evidence that

Guzman had traveled to Leon, Mexico with Gomez. Soon after their trip, Guzman

texted Gomez addresses and names of individuals. Packages were shipped from

Leon, Mexico to the addresses provided by Guzman. Guzman received the packages

from Williams and then gave them to Gomez. Guzman’s surreptitious behavior with

respect to the packages and his involvement with receiving the packages could lead

a jury to conclude that Guzman knew of the packages’ illicit contents. We thus hold

that there was sufficient evidence to support all three counts of Guzman’s

convictions. 

-3-
Guzman also challenges the district court’s calculation of his offense level,

arguing that the district court clearly erred in determining that the conspiracy

involved five or more kilograms of cocaine. See United States v. Marshall, 411 F.3d

891, 894 (8th Cir. 2005) (standard of review). We disturb the district court’s

determination “only if the entire record definitely and firmly convinces us that a

mistake has been made.” United States v. Titlbach, 300 F.3d 919, 923 (8th Cir.

2002). 

The district court concluded that Guzman was responsible for all three

packages, the combined contents of which consisted of more than five kilograms of

cocaine. Although Guzman concedes that the first two packages together amounted

to at least 4,990 grams, he argues that the district court clearly erred in attributing the

third package to him, with the result that the determination of any amount of cocaine

in the third package constituted “mere speculation” by the district court.

The district court did not clearly err when it held that the third package had

some amount of cocaine attributable to Guzman. The package’s name and address

matched a name and address provided by Guzman to Gomez. As with the other two

packages, this package originated from Leon, Mexico and waslabeled as an “aerobic

step.” Williams also admitted to picking up a package from FedEx for Guzman.

Although the third package was never inspected by law enforcement, sufficient

circumstantial evidence connected the package to Guzman, and given the temporal

proximity to the delivery of the other packages, it was reasonable to conclude that at

least ten grams of cocaine were in the third package. See United States v. Atkins, 250

F.3d 1203, 1212 (8th Cir. 2001) (“[The Guidelines] gives the court the authority to

approximate the quantity of drugs where there is no seizure or where the amount

seized does not reflect the scale of the offense.”). The district court thus did not

clearly err when it found that the quantity of cocaine exceeded five kilograms. 

-4-
Finally, Guzman argues that the district court clearly erred in finding that he

had acted as a manager or supervisor. See United States v. Cosey, 602 F.3d 943, 947

(8thCir. 2010) (standard of review). Under Guidelines § 3B1.1(b), Guzman’s offense

level was subject to a three-level increase if he was a “manager or supervisor (but not

an organizer or leader) and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or

was otherwise extensive.” We have held that a defendant may be subject to the

enhancement even if he managed or supervised only one participant, limited to a

single transaction. See United States v. Valencia, 829 F. 3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir.

2016). The evidence supports the district court’s application of the enhancement. 

Guzman used Williams to provide the names and addresses of individuals, so that

Guzman could transmit these to Gomez. Guzman also directed Williams to pick up

packages at UPS and FedEx and told her where to meet him. Given this evidence, the

district court’sfinding that Guzman was a manager or supervisor of Williams was not

clearly erroneous. 

The judgment is affirmed. 

______________________________

-5-