# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 13 35

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Mar co s De La To rre

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka - Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: May 17, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Octo be r 22 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , BEAM an d C OLLOTO N, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

Mar co s De La Torr e was co nv ic te d of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e an d/ or po ss es s wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 0 gr am s or m or e of a m ix tu re or su bs t a n c e c o n ta in in g

m et ha m ph et am in e (“ Co un t I”) ; po ss es si on wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e 5 gr am s or m or e of ac t u a l met ha m

ph et am in e (“ Co un t II”) ; an d di st rib ut io n an d/ or po ss es si on wit h
in te nt to di st rib ut e 50 gr am s o r m or e o f act ua l m et ha m ph et am in e (“ Co un t IV”). DeLa Torr e ap pe a l s , arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n to 1

su pp res s, m ot io n to di sm is s fo r vi ol at io n of th e Sp eed y Tria l Act, an d m ot io n fo r
acq ui tt al

. He al so al le ge s th at th e d i s tri ct co ur t m ad e se ve ral erro ne ou s ev id en ti ary

ru li ng s at tri al an d c on te nd s t ha t h is att or ne y ren de red in effe ct iv e as si st an ce be fo re

an d du rin g tri al

. W e de cl in e to rev ie w hi s in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m an d
affi rm on th e rem ai ni ng is su es

.

I. Bac kg ro un d
W e ta ke th e fo ll owi ng fact s fro m th e te st im on y gi ve n ov er th e co ur se of De La
Torr e’s fo ur -d ay tri al . We pr es en t th em “ in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e v erd ic t.”
Uni te d S ta te s v. Mee ks , 63 9 F .3d 52 2, 5 25 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

In 20 14
, De La Torr e ha d be co m e a ta rg et of in ve st ig at io n fo r la w en fo rcem en t
in th e Om ah a, Neb ras ka area

. De La Torr e op erat ed De La Torr e Aut o Rep ai r, an au to

r e pa ir sh op at 40 16 Ham il to n St reet in Om ah a. Law en fo rcem en t su sp ect e d t h a t h e il le ga ll y di st rib ut ed co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es fro m th at lo cat io n.

In Aug us t 2 01 4, Ryan Sl av ic ek , a n acq ua in ta nc e of De La Torr e’s, de li ve red

a car to De La Torr e’s sh op fo r se rv ic e. The two m en de ci de d th at De La Torr e wou ld

co nd uc t a te st dr iv e of th e car. De La Torr e dr ov e th e ve hi cl e, wit h Sl av ic ek an d
Sl av ic ek ’s y ou ng so n as pa ss en ge rs

. So on , lo cal po li ce pu ll ed th em ov er fo r a tra ffi c vi ol at io n. Sl av ic ek was rem ov ed fro m th e car, whi le De La Torr e an d Sl av ic ek ’s so n

rem ai ne d in si de

. Sl av ic ek co ns en te d to a se arch of th e ve hi cl e. The of fic ers reco ve red
ab ou t two ou nc es of m et ha m ph et am in e fro m th e car’s cen te r co ns ol e. The y al so fo und

se ve ral th ou sa nd do ll ars in cas h on bo th De La Torr e an d Sl av ic ek

. S l a v i c e k ha d a hi st or y of m et ha m

ph et am in e us e. Bo th m en w e r e arre st ed
, an d Sl av ic ek was

su bs eq ue nt ly ch arg ed in st at e co ur t wit h po ss es si on of m et h a m ph et am in e. St at e

The Hon or ab le Lau rie Sm it h Cam p, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Dis tri ct of Ne br as ka

.
-2

-au th or it ie s la te r di sm is se d th is ch arg e, an d fed eral au th or it ie s in di ct ed Sl av ic ek fo r

dr ug po ss es si on

. Sl av ic ek cl ai m ed
, fro m th e ti m e of hi s arre st th ro ug h De La Torr e’s
tri al
, th at th e m et ha m

ph et am in e was no t hi s. At so m e po in t, Sl av ic ek ag reed to se rv e

as an in fo rm an t i n a ss is ti ng au th or it ie s i n t he in ve st ig at io n o f De La Tor re.

Earl y on th e m or ni ng of J ul y

1, 20 15 , p ol ic e su rv ei ll ed De La Torr e, se ek in g

ev id en ce of i l l i c it dr ug sa le s. At ab ou t 5: 00 a.m ., of fic ers be ga n m on it or in g De La
Torr e’s au to rep ai r bu si ne ss

. Thi s bu si ne ss sh ared a bu il di ng wit h an ot he r bu si ne ss , Neo ’s Aut o Rep ai r an d Co ll i s i o n

. At ab ou t 6: 30 a.m ., po li ce al so wen t to De La
Torr e’s ho m e to as k hi m to c o n s e n t t o a se arch of it . De La Torr e’s br ot he r, Dav id
,

an swe red th e do or

. Dav id in fo rm ed po li ce th at De La Torr e was no t at ho m e an d th at he pre ferr ed to di sc us s t he m at te r wit h De La To rre b efo re co ns en ti ng

.

W it h p o l i c e p e r m is si on , Dav id cal le d De La Torr e an d ap pr is ed hi m of th e si tu at io n. Eve nt ua ll y , De La Torr e sp ok e wit h th e of fic ers di rect ly an d gr an te d

pe rm is si on to se arch th e ho us e. “ [W] it hi n a m at te r of a few m in ut es ” of th e ph on e cal l’s en d, a car arri ve d at th e sh op

. Tr. of Pro ceed in gs , Vol

. II, at 25 7, Uni te d St at es

v. De La To rr e , No. 8: 16 -cr- 00 11 5 (D. Neb

. Oct. 26
, 20 16 ), EC F No. 10 8. A m an la te r id en ti fie d as Mi gu el Diaz -Hu iz ar, an as so ci at e of De La Torr e, go t ou t of th e car. D i a z

- H ui zar wor ke d at Neo ’s an d, oc cas io na ll y , di d m ech an ic al wor k fo r De La
Torr e. He was ob se rv ed en te rin g De La Torr e’s sh op carr y in g no th in g. W he n he le ft

a sh or t whi le la te r, he was carr y in g a ba g c on ta in in g a pl as ti c co nt ai ne r. Po li ce
st op pe d Diaz -Hu iz ar’s car fo r two m in or tra ffi c of fen se s (an ex pi red li cen se pl at e an d
f a i l u r e to si gn al ) sh or tl y aft er he le ft th e sh op

. The of fic ers di sc ov ered ab ou t th r e e
qu art ers of a po un d of m et ha m ph et am in e in th e co nt ai ne r fo un d in th e car. Howev er, th e ro ug hl y

co nt em po ran eo us sea rch of De La Torre ’s ho us e p ro ve d fr ui tl es s.

I n Sep te m

be r 20 15 , a ct in g as an in fo rm an t, Sl av ic ek in it ia te d a co nv ers at io n wit h De La Torr e ab ou t Sl av ic ek ’s le ga l tro ub le s whi le weari ng a wire

. W he n as ke d
ab ou t th e co nv ers at io n at tri a l
, S l a v ic ek st at ed
, “ [T]he go ve rn m en t wan te d m e to

-3

-m ak e co nt act wit h [De La Torr e] ab ou t any dr ug in vo lv em en t. My in te nt io n whi le I

was th ere was to co nf

ro nt hi m ab ou t th e dr ug s th at he pu t in th e ve hi cl e.” Id

. at 17 5.

In Marc h 2 01 6, De La To rre was in di ct ed on Co un ts I, II, an d IV. Hi s fa th er, Mar co s De La Torr e-Ca sa s (“ Cas as ”), was in di c t e d on Co un t I an d fo r po ss es si on wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te 5 gram s or m or e of m et ha m ph et am in e (“ Co un t III”). Co un t
I al le ge d th at De La Torr e an d hi s fat he r’s co ns pi racy la st ed fro m on or ab ou t Ja nu ary 20 11 to Ju ly 20 15

. Co un t II al le ge d th at th e po ss es si on of m et ha m ph et am in e to ok pl ace on Aug us t 25
, 20 14
, th e da te th at De La Torr e was st op pe d whi le wit h Sl av ic ek

. The o f f e n s e d a t e fo r Co un t IV was Ju ly 1, 20 15
, th e da te of th e se arch of De La
Torr e’s ho m e an d b us in es s.

De La Torr e was arra ig ne d on Apr il 6, 20 16

. The go ve rn m en t m ov ed fo r 2
de te nt io n on th at da y , whi ch De La Torr e res is te d. The di st ric t co ur t he ld a de te nt io n he ari ng on Apr il 21 an d ru le d in fav or of th e go ve rn m en t. On Apr il 26
, De La Torr e fil ed a m ot i on to ex te nd th e pr et ria l m ot io ns de ad li ne to May 1 7, whi ch th e di st ric t

co ur t gr an te d. De La To rre fil ed a m ot io n to su pp res s on May 17

. The m ag is tra te jud ge he ld a he ari ng on th e m ot io n on Ju ne 16

. The m ag is tra te jud ge fir st ad dr es se d
whe th er it wou l d c o n s id er a nu m be r of de fen se m ot io ns ch al le ng in g th e va li di ty o f
th e warra nt us ed to se arch De La Torr e’s ho m e. At th e co nc lu si on of th e he ari ng , th e

m ag is tra te jud ge de te rm in ed th at th es e m ot io ns , fil ed well aft er the pr et ria l m ot io ns de ad li ne , were in ex cu sa bl y un ti m el y

. The m ag is tra te jud ge en te red hi s or de r

reco m m en di ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t de ny th e m ot io n to su pp res s. De La Torr e fil ed
ob jecti on s to th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s fin di ng s an d reco m m en da ti on

. The di st ric t co ur t is su ed a writ te n or de r ad op ti ng th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s fin di ng s an d reco m m en da ti on

on Aug us t 2 4. On Aug us t 2 5, t he di st ric t co ur t s et tri al for Sep te m be r 27

.

All do ck et ev en ts , as wel l as th e tr ia l, t oo k p la ce i n 2 01 6. 2

-4

-On Sep te m be r 1, th e go ve rn m en t fil e d a m ot io n to co nt in ue th e tri al da te to

en ab le th e U.S. Mars ha ls Serv ic e (USMS ) to se cu re wi tn es s Tam m y Gall , who was in carc erat ed in a fed eral faci li ty i n Ph oe ni x, Ariz on a. The m ag is tra te jud ge gra nt ed
th e m ot io n on Sep te m

be r 6, refe ren ci ng bo th th e en ds of jus ti ce and Gall ’s st at us as

a ne ces sa ry wit ne ss

. De La To r r e o b je ct ed
, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t no te d th at De La
Torr e di d no t di sp ut e th e go ve rn m en t’s fact s. It fo un d th e ti m e ne ed ed by th e USMS

to se cu re th e wi t n e s s w a s reas on ab le

. The di st ric t co ur t ov erru le d De La Torr e’s
ob jecti on on Sep te m

be r 21

.

On Octo be r 19
, De La Torr e fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r Sp eed y Tria l Act
vi ol at io ns

. The m ot io n al le ge d t h a t th e di st ric t co ur t ha d erro ne ou sl y ex cl ud ed th e de la y cau se d by th e co nt in ua nc e to se cu re Gall ’s pr es en ce at tri al

. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, co nc lu di ng th at th e co nt in ua nc e pr om ot ed th e en ds of jus ti ce an d,

ev en if i t d id no t, fe wer t ha n 7 0 n on -ex cl ud ab le da y s wo ul d h av e ru n b efo re t ria l:

The Co ur t co nc lu de s th at th e de la y res ul t i ng fro m th e co nt in ua nc e

se rv ed th e en ds of

jus ti ce, th us , th e ti m e was pr op erl y ex cl ud ed fro m th e sp eed y tri al cl oc k. Se e § 31 61 (h )(7 )(A). Nev ert he le ss , as di sc us se d be lo w, ev en if th e de la y res ul t in g fro m th e co nt in ua nc e ha d no t be en

e x c l ud ed
, 70 da y s wil l no t ha ve el ap se d si nc e Defen da nt ’s fir s t ap pe aran ce, ta ki ng in to acco un t ot he r ex cl ud ab le pe rio ds un de r th e Act.

Uni te d St at es v. De La To rr e , No. 8: 16 -cr- 00 11 5, 20 16 W L 61 02 33 8, at *1 (D. Neb

. Oct. 1 9, 2 01 6)

.

Als o sh or tl y b e f

o r e t r i a l, De La Torr e fil ed a m ot io n in li m in e se ek in g to

ex cl ud e th e reco rd in g of hi s co nv ers at io n wit h Sl av ic ek

. He arg ue d t h a t t h e po or

so un d qu al it y de st ro y ed it s ev id en ti ary va lu e. Add it io na ll y , he so ug ht th e ex cl us io n of pi ct ur es of te xt m es s ag es fro m Gall ’s ph on e th at al le ge dl y de m on st rat ed th at he

su pp li ed he r wit h il le ga l dr ug s. He as se rte d th e m es sa ge s (1 ) were he ars ay , (2 ) la ck ed

su ffi ci en t pr oo f of co nn ect io n to hi m to qu al ify as th e ad m is si on s of a pa rty op po ne nt ,

-5

-(3 ) ne ces sa ril y in cl ud ed he ars ay st at em en ts of Gall
, an d (4 ) were ta ke n ou t of co nt ex t

of De La Torr e an d Gall ’s co nv ers at io ns

. Fi na ll y , he arg ue d th at la ck of fo ren si c

an al y si s on th e ph on e, as well as th e li m it ed nu m be r of te xt m es sa ge s, wou ld m is le ad
th e jury an d pr ejud ic e hi m in vi ol at io n of Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3. On th e fir st da y of tri al
, be fo re vo ir di re co m m en ced
, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n as to th e
te xt m es sa ge s an d d el ay ed rul in g o n t he reco rd in g u nt il lat er i n t he tri al

.

At tri al
, th e go ve rn m en t pr es en te d th e te st im on y of Om ah a Po li ce Dep art m en t Offi cer Ja m es Hol tm ey er. Offi cer Hol tm ey er was on e of th e of fic ers who co nd uc te d
th e Aug us t 20 14 tra ffi c st op of De La Torr e an d Sl av ic ek

. Hol t meyer te st ifi ed th at Sl av ic ek sp ok e wit h th e of fic ers ou ts id e th e ve hi cl e an d ga v e c o n se nt to se arch

. D u r i ng th is ti m e, De La Torr e rem ai ne d in th e car al on e wit h Sl av ic ek ’s so n

. Hol tm ey er ack no wled ge d th at ei th er Sl av ic ek or De La Torr e co ul d ha ve be en

res po ns ib le for th e m et ha m ph et am in e fo un d i n t he cen te r co ns ol e.

The ne xt wit ne ss , DEA Age nt Fran k Fed en , pr ov id ed inf or m at ion re ga

rd ing the

us e of in fo rm an ts in cri m in al in ve st ig at io ns a n d S l av ic ek ’s co op erat io n wit h la w

en fo rcem en t. Age nt Fed en st at ed th a t he to ok pa rt in Sl av ic ek ’s pr of fer in te rv ie w, whi ch sp ur red t h e w i r e d co nv ers at io n. In th is op erat io n, la w en fo rcem en t pl aced a hi dd en reco rd er an d vi de o cam era on Sl av ic ek an d se nt hi m to De La Torr e’s bu si ne ss
to ta lk to hi m

. The y ho pe d th at De La Torr e wou ld im pl ic a t e h i ms e l f in th e sa le of
il le ga l d ru gs

.

De La Torr e’s co nv ers at io n wit h Sl av ic ek was reco rd ed wit h a hi dd en cam era affi xe d to Sl av ic ek ’s pe rs on an d an au di o reco rd in g de vi ce sh ap ed li ke a ke y fo b an d pl aced on Sl av ic ek ’s ke y rin g. Howev er, b e cau se th e reco rd in g de vi ces di d no t

tra ns m it co nt em

po ran eo us ly, Sl av ic ek was al so gi ve n a de vi ce refe rred to as a “ Kel”
th at al lo wed po li ce to he ar wha t was ha pp en in g in real ti m e. The go ve rn m en t m ov ed

to ad m it a DVD o f t h e co nv ers at io n du rin g Age nt Fed en ’s te st im on y

. The di st ric t

co ur t acce pt ed it ov er a de fen se ob je c t i o n

. Th e co ur t ga ve a li m it in g in st ru ct io n,

-6

-or de rin g th e jury no t to acce pt an y th in g Sl av ic ek st at ed in th e reco rd in g fo r th e tru th

of th e m at te r as se rte d.

The go ve rn m en t th en cal le d Sl av ic ek to th e wit ne ss st an d. Sl av ic ek st at ed th at he ha d us ed m et ha m

ph et am in e of

f an d on fo r se ve ral y ears le ad in g up to hi s Aug us t
20 14 arre st

. He sa id he ha d m et De La Torr e th ro ug h wor k aro un d 20 10 an d th at De
La Torr e ev en tu al ly be cam e on e of hi s so ur ces f o r m et ha m

ph et am in e. He te st ifi ed
th at he bo ug ht m et ha m

ph et a mine fro m De La Torr e ov er 20 ti m es , in am ou nt s

ran gi ng fro m 1/ 4 ou nc e to 1/ 4 po un d. In ad di ti on , he te st ifi ed th at he ha d pu rch as ed
l a r g e qu an ti ti es (o ve r two po un ds ) of m ari juan a fro m De La Torr e on se ve ra l

oc cas io ns

. He al so di sc lo se d th at he ha d en te red in to a co nd it io na l n o n p r o s e cu ti on
ag reem en t to ha ve hi s ch arg es dr o p p e d i n ex ch an ge fo r te st ifyin g at De La Torr e’s
tri al ; h is on ly ins tru ct io n fr om th e g ov ern m en t was th at he be ho ne st

.

Sl av i c e k st at ed th at whe n he an d De La Torr e co nd uc te d dr ug de al s th ey di d

so at an ot he r au to sh op op erat ed by De La Torr e. He te st ifi ed th at he pe rs on al ly sa w De La Torr e in po ss es si on of “ [p ]rob ab ly a co up le po un ds ” of m et ha m ph et am in e in a Tup pe rware co nt ai ne r. Tr. of Pro ceed in gs , Vol . II, at 1 70 . Acco rd in g t o S la vi cek
, th ey ne ve r co nd uc te d d ru g d eal s at th e sh op on Ham il to n S tre et

.

Dou gl as Co un ty Sh eri ff’s D ep ut y The res a Ogo rzal y te st ifi ed as to he r ro le in
th e in ve st ig at io n. Sh e an d ot he r of fic ers m on it or ed th e dr ug bu y be twee n Cas as an d
Gall

. Sh e a l s o e x p l ai ne d th at aft er Gall ’s arre st , sh e co ns en te d to a se arch of he r
p h on e, whi ch Ogo rzal y co nd uc te d. Ogo rzal y to ok pi ct ur es of dr ug -rel at ed te x t

m es sa ge s Gal l ex ch an ge d wi th De La Torr e an d d is cu ss ed th em wit h Gal l.

Gall
, who
, li ke Sl av ic ek
, was su bjec t to a co op erat io n a g r e e ment , te st ifi ed
ab ou t he r rel at io ns hi p wit h De La Torr e an d hi s fat he r. Sh e sa id th at sh e kn ew De La
Torr e su pp li ed m et ha m

ph et am in e, th at sh e pu rch as ed m et ha m ph et am in e fro m hi m on

se ve ral oc cas io ns fo r bo th pe rs on al us e an d fo r res al e, an d th at Cas as de li ve red dr ug s

-7

-fo r De La Torr e. Sh e lo gg ed he r tra ns act io ns in a da y pl an ne r an d co m m un ic at ed wit h
De La Torr e th ro ug h b ot h p ho ne cal ls an d t ex t m es sa ge s. Th e co ur t recei ve d Gall ’s pl an ne r an d no te bo ok in to ev id en ce du rin g he r te st im on y

. The te xt m es sa ge s be twee n Gall an d De La To rre wer e al so ad m it te d d ur in g h er t es ti m on y

.

Diaz -Hu iz ar al so te st ifi ed
, cl ai m in g th at he was no t in vo lv ed in na rco ti cs

. He

rep res en te d th at he on ly pi ck ed up th e pa ck ag e be cau se De La Torr e as ke d hi m to an d
di d n ot kn ow t ha t i t co nt ai ne d a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e.

Afte r th e go ve rn m en t res te d, th e de fe n s e mo v e d fo r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

un de r Fed eral Ru le of C riminal Pro ced ur e 2 9, wh ic h t he di st ric t co ur t d en ie d.

De La To r r e te st ifi ed in hi s own de fen se

. He st at ed th at he di d no t te ll Diaz

Hui zar to pi c k up a pa ck ag e fro m th e sh op ; th at he ba rel y kn ew Gall ; an d th at he

ne ve r te xt ed Gall
, sp ok e to he r on th e ph on e, or so ld dr ug s to he r. He al so
cat eg or ic al ly de ni ed th at he so ld an y dr ug s ou t of hi s sh op s. Mo reo v e r , h e de ni ed

res po ns ib il it y fo r th e m et ha m ph et am in e reco ve red in th e Aug us t 20 14 st op an d sa id
th at h e on ly sp ok e as he di d wit h Sl av ic ek to m ol li fy hi m , as he se em ed an gr y an d
da ng ero us

.

Afte r ab ou t fo ur an d a h al f ho ur s o f de li be rat io n, t he jury fo un d De La Torr e
gu il ty on al l th ree co un ts

. De La Torr e m ov ed fo r acq ui t t al or , in th e al te rn at iv e, a

ne w tri al . The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io ns

.

II. Dis cu ss io n On ap pe al
, De La Torr e arg ue s th at t h e d i s t ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s

m ot io n to su pp res s, m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al
, an d m ot io n to di sm is s. He al so co nt en ds th e

-8

-di st ric t co ur t m ad e rev ers ib le ev id en ti ary erro rs . F in al ly, h e arg ue s th at hi s co un se l

pr ov id ed in effe ct iv e as si st an ce b y no t t im el y

m ov in g fo r a Fra nk

s he ari ng

. 3

A. Mot io n t o S

up pr es s De La Torr e se ek s rev ers al of th e co ur t’s de ni al of hi s su pp res si on m ot io n,

av erri ng th at th e se arch warra nt ap pl ic at io n fo r hi s sh op was in va li d. He co nt en ds th e

warra nt ap pl ic at i o n s h ou ld ha ve di sc lo se d th at th e se arch of hi s ho m e y ie ld ed no

co nt rab an d an d th at hi s bu si ne ss sh ared a bu il di ng wit h an ot he r bu si ne ss

. He a ls o
arg ue s th at th e ev id en ce di d no t su ffi ci en tl y co nn ect t h e “ cu be sh ap ed ob ject” th e affi da vi t cl ai m s Diaz -Hu iz ar po ss es se d as he le ft th e sh op to th e “ br own pa pe r ba g”
in whi ch th e p ol ic e fo un d d ru gs aft er s to pp in g Di az-Hu iz ar. Ap pe ll an t’s Br . at 1 4.

The ta sk of th e is su in g m ag is tra te is si m pl y to mak e a p ract ic al
, co m m on -s en se de ci si on whe th er, gi ve n al l th e ci rcu m st an ces s e t fo rth in th e affi da vi t be fo re hi m , in cl ud in g th e “ ve raci t y ” an d “ ba si s of k no wled ge ” of pe rs on s su pp lying he ars ay in fo rm at io n, th ere is a f a i r p r o b a b i l it y th at co nt rab an d or ev id en ce of a cri m e wil l be fo un d in a pa rti cu la r pl ace . An d th e du ty o f a rev ie win g co ur t is si m pl y to en su re th at th e m ag is tra te ha d a “ su bs t a n ti al ba si s fo r

. . . co nc lu d[ in g]” th at pr ob ab le cau se ex is te d.

Ill in oi s v. Gat es , 46 2 U.S. 21 3, 23 8– 39 (1 9 8 3 ) (al te rat io n an d el li ps is in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Jo ne s v. Un it ed

St at es , 36 2 U.S. 2 57 , 27 1 (1 96 0) ).

I n ru li ng on a m ot io n to su pp res s, pr ob ab le cau se is de te rm in ed ba se d

on th e in fo rma t i o n be fo re th e is su in g jud ic ia l of fic er. W e lo ok to th e to ta li ty o f th e ci rcu m st an ces to de te rm in e whe th er an affi da vi t is

su ffi ci en t to de m on st rat e pr ob ab le cau se

. Pro ba bl e cau se ex is ts if th e

warra nt ap pl ic at io n an d affi da vi t de sc rib e ci rcu m st an ces sh owi ng a fai r pr ob ab il it y th at co n t r a b a n d or ev id en ce of a cri m e wil l be fo un d in a pa rti cu la r pl ace, a n d ou r du ty on ap pe al is si m pl y to en su re th at th e

Fra nk s v. Del aw ar e , 43 8 U.S. 1 54 (19 78 ). 3

-9

-m ag is tra te ha d a su bs ta n t i a l ba si s fo r co nc lu di ng th at pr ob ab le cau se

ex is te d. Tho ug h th e is su e of pr ob ab le cau se is rev ie wed de no vo , th is

co ur t ac co rd s g reat de fere nc e to th e is su in g ju dg e’s de te rm in at io n t ha t th e aff id av it est ab li sh ed pro ba bl e cau se

.

Uni te d S ta te s v. K

eel e , 58 9 F .3d 94 0, 9 43 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) (cl ean ed up ).

De La Torr e’s ch al le ng e to th e warra nt ’s s uf fic ie nc y fai ls . The fa ct s s et for th
in th e affi da vi t su pp or t pr ob ab le cau se

. Po li ce ob se rv ed a m an , Diaz -Hu iz ar, en te rin g De La Torr e’s rep ai r sh op em pt y -h an de d. Mo m en ts la te r, th e sa m e m an le ft carr y in g

so m et hi ng wit h a no ti ceab le sh ap e. Aut ho rit ie s st op pe d th is m an an d fo un d hi m wit h

m et ha m ph et am in e an d a sc al e. The po li ce ob se rv an c e o f co nt rab an d po te nt ia ll y

or ig in at in g fro m De La Torr e’s sh op ad eq ua te ly su pp or te d th e au th or iz at io n of a

se arch warra nt fo r th e sh op

. The se fact s su pp or t th e fin di ng of a fai r pr ob ab il it y th at

ev id en ce of a dr ug cri m e wou ld be fo un d in th e sh op

. Se e id

. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e d en ia l o f th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

B. Sp eed y Tr ia l
De La Torr e arg ue s th at th e ti m e ex cl ud ed fo r th e co nt in ua nc e req ue st ed by th e
go ve rn m en t sh ou ld ha ve co un te d fo r Sp eed y Tria l A c t pu rp os es

. The go ve rn m en t

res po nd s th at th e de la y was ne ed ed to se cu re th e pr es en ce of wit ne ss Tam m y Gall an d
th eref or e was ex cl ud ab le

. The go ve rn m en t al so no te s th at ev en if th at pe rio d were no t

ex cl ud e d, fewer th an 70 no n- ex cl ud ab le da y s el ap se d be twee n De La Torr e’s

arra ig nm en t an d tri al

. The reco rd su pp o r t s th e go ve rn m en t’s al te rn at iv e ba si s fo r affi rm an ce.

Und er th e Sp eed y Tria l Act, a de fen da nt m us t be br ou gh t to tri al wit hi n

se ve nt y da y s fro m th e in di ct m en t or th e fir st ap pe aran ce, whi ch ev er

oc cu rs la te r. 18 U.S.C. § 31 61 (c)( 1) . I f th e de fen da nt is no t b ro ug ht to
t r i a l wit hi n th is pe rio d, th e in di ct m en t m us t be di sm is se d o n t h e de fen da nt ’s m ot io n. Id

. § 31 62 (a)( 2)

. Exc lu de d fro m th e se ve nt y da y

-1 0-li m it are de la y s gr an te d f o r c e r t a in sp eci fic reas on s. Id

. § 31 61 (h ). As rel ev an t he re, excl ud

ab le pe ri od

s in cl ud e de lay

s re sul ting fr om th e fi li ng of pr et ri al mot io ns , §

31 61 (h )(1 )(D), t he un av ai la bi li ty of an ess en ti al wi tn es s, § 3 1 61 (h

)(3 )(A)
, th e joi nd er of a co de fen da nt fo r who m th e Sp eed y Tria l Act cl oc k ha s no t y et ru n, § 31 61 (h )(6 ), an d a fin di ng by th e di st ric t co ur t th at “ th e en ds of ju st ic e

. . . ou tw ei

gh th e be st in te re st

s of th e p ub li c a nd

th e d ef en da nt in a s pe ed y tr ia l .” § 3 16 1( h) (7 )(A).

Uni te d S ta te s v. Por ch ay , 6 51 F.3 d 93 0, 93 5– 36 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) (em ph as es ad de d)

. In an ap pe al of a Sp eed y Tria l Act ru li ng , we rev ie w fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear e rro r

an d le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo

. Uni te d St at es v. Ald ac o , 47 7 F.3 d 10 08
, 10 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Va n S ome re n , 11 8 F .3d 12 14 , 12 16 (8t h C ir. 1 99 7) ).

Of th e 20 2 cal en da r da y s be tw e e n D e La Torr e’s arra ig nm en t an d th e

co m m en cem en t of tria l, well m or e th an th e am ou nt ne ces sa ry to av oi d vi ol at in g th e Sp eed y Tria l Act were ex cl ud ab le du e to ei th er pe nd in g m ot io ns or a pr et ria l m ot io ns de ad li ne ex te ns io n. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( h) (1 )(D) (ex cl ud in g “ de la y res ul ti ng fro m

an y pr et ria l mo t i o n , fro m th e fil in g of th e m ot io n th ro ug h th e co nc lu si on of th e he ari ng on , or o th er p ro m pt di sp os it io n o f, su ch m ot io n” ).

D e La Torr e’s arra ig nm en t to ok pl ace on Apr il 6. Thi s da te wou ld no rm al ly

m ark th e st art of th e s pe ed y tri al cl oc k. Se e 18 U.S.C. § 3 16 1( c)(1 ). Howev er, th e
go ve rn m en t fil ed a de te nt io n m ot io n th at da y , an d th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ru le on it

un ti l Apr il 21

. The refo re, th e 70 -d ay cl oc k be ga n to ru n on Apr il 22

. On Apr il 26
, De
La To r r e fil ed a m ot io n to ex te nd th e pr et ria l de ad li ne fro m Apr il 27 to Ma y 1 7
be cau se hi s co un se l ne ed ed m or e ti m e to rev ie w di sc ov ery an d de te rm in e whe th er to
fil e an y pr et ria l m ot io ns

. The di st ric t cou rt gra nt ed th e m ot io n aft er co nc lu di ng th at th e ex te ns io n se rv ed th e en ds of jus ti ce. The co ur t th us ex cl ud ed Apr il 26 to May 17
,

-1 1-th e ti m e pe rio d be twee n th e fil in g of th e m ot io n an d th e ne w de ad li ne

. De La Torr e 4
fil ed hi s m ot io n to su pp res s on May 17 an d ag ai n st op pe d th e cl oc k. It di d no t res ta rt

un ti l th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of th e m ot io n on Aug us t 24

. As of th at da te , on ly fo ur

no n- ex cl ud ab le da y s ha d el ap se d. The ne xt da y , Aug us t 25
, th e co ur t se t tri al fo r Sep te m be r 27

.

Ano th er se ve n no n- ex cl ud ab le da y s ran be twee n Aug us t 25 an d Sep te m be r 1.
On th at da y , th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed to co nt in ue

. Thi s m ot io n st op pe d th e cl oc k un ti l Sep te mb e r 6
, whe n th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e req ue st ed co nt in ua nc e. The cl oc k

t h e n r an ag ai n fro m Sep te m be r 7 un ti l Sep te m

be r 15 , wh en th e go ve rn m en t m ov ed
fo r a co nf li ct he ari ng . The d is tri ct co ur t d en ie d t he m ot io n o n S ep te m be r 22

.

The refo re, as of Sep te m

be r 22
, no m or e th an 19 no n- ex cl ud ab le da y s of de la y ha d el ap se d. As su ch
, ev en if we were to rev ers e th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex cl us io n of th e
pe rio d be twee n Sep te m

be r 23 an d Octo be r 2 5
, t he da te on whi ch tri al co m m en ced
,

on ly 51 no n- ex cl ud ab le da y s wou ld ha ve el ap se d. Acco rd in gl y , th e di st ric t co ur t di d

no t er r in de nyin g De La To rre’s m ot io n t o d is m is s. 5

C. Evid en ti ar

y Rul in gs

“ W e rev ie w a Dis tri ct Co ur t’s ev id en ti ary ru li ng s fo r cl ear ab us e of di sc ret io n,

rev er s i n g on ly whe n an im pr op er ev id en ti ary ru li ng affe ct ed th e Defen da nt ’s

In hi s m ot io n, De La Torr e “ ack no wled ge [d ] th at an y ti m e gr an te d wil l no t be 4 in cl ud ed in an y cal cu la ti on un de r th e Sp eed y Tria l Act.” Uno pp os ed Mo t. to Ext en d Pret ria l Mo ts

. Dead li ne at 1, Uni te d St at es v. De La To rr e , No. 8: 16 -0 01 15 (D. Neb

. Apr . 26 , 20 16 ), ECF No. 2 2.

De La Torr e su gg es ts th at th e two week s du rin g whi ch th e go ve rn m en t’s 5 d e te nt io n m ot io n was pe nd in g sh ou ld no t ha ve be en ex cl ud ed be cau se “ th e m at t e r

was no t un de r ad vi se m en t fo r a si ng le da y .” App el la nt ’s Br. at 31

. Howev er, he do es

no t su pp or t th is cl ai m wit h an y au th or it y . Ac co rd in gl y , w e d i s r e ga rd it

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Si

gi ll it o , 75 9 F .3d 91 3, 9 33 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4)

.
-1 2-su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s or ha d m or e th an a sl ig ht in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.” Uni te d St at es

v. Es p i n o z a , 68 4 F.3 d 76 6, 77 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Fau lk ne r , 63 6 F .3d 10 09 , 10 17 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ).

De La Torr e arg ue s th at th e reco rd in g m ad e of hi s co nv ers at io n wit h Sl av ic ek

was so la ck in g in so un d qu al it y th at it sh ou ld ha ve be en ru l e d in ad m is si bl e un de r Uni te d St at es v. Tr og do n , 57 5 F.3 d 76 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). Reg ard in g th e te xt m es sa ge s, he cl ai m s th ey were un rel ia bl e he ars ay

. He al so as se rts th at th e reco rd in g an d th e te xt

m es sa ge s wer e in ad m is si bl e u nd er Fe de ral Ru le of Ev id en ce 4 03

. 6

1. Sl av ic ek Co nv er

sa ti on W e fir st co ns id er the reco rd in g of De La Torr e’s co nv ers at io n with Sla vi cek

. We r ev ie w th is m at te r un de r th e ab us e of di sc ret io n st an da rd

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ca ld er in -Rod

ri gu ez , 24 4 F.3 d 97 7, 98 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Huf f
, 95 9 F .2d 73 1, 7 37 –3 8 (8 th Cir . 19 92 )).

The de ci si on to ad m it pa rti al ly in au di bl e au di o tap es is a m at te r wit hi n th e so un d di sc ret io n of th e di st ric t co ur t. The di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld as se ss whe th er th e un in te ll ig ib le po rti on s of th e ta pe are so su bs ta nt ia l, in vi ew of th e pu rp os e fo r whi ch th e ta pe s are of fere d, as to ren de r th e reco rd in g

a s a who le un tru st wor th y

. In m ak in g th is de te rm in at io n, th e di st ri c t

Tho ug h De La Torr e de sc rib es th e ev id en ce as fall in g un de r Fed eral Ru le of 6 Evi de nc e 40 4( b)
, we reject th is ch arac te riz at io n, as al l th e ch al le ng ed “ ex hi bi ts were of fere d as di rect ev id en ce of th e ch arg ed cri m es .” App el le e’s Br. at 30

. W e th eref or e de cl in e to co nd uc t a Ru le 40 4( b) an al y si s. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Bal le w , 40 F.3 d 93 6, 94 1 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) (“ [The ap pe ll an t’s] ob jecti on un de r 40 4( b) m is ch arac te riz es th e

ev id en ce in qu es ti on as ev id en ce of ‘oth er cri m es , wro ng s, or act s.’ The

. . . ev id en ce is be tt er de sc rib ed as di rect ev id en ce of th e cri m e ch arg ed

. . . . Dire ct ev id en ce of th e cri m e ch arg ed is no t s u b je ct to th e he ig ht en ed sc ru ti ny of Ru le 40 4( b) .” (ci ta ti on

om it te d) ).

-1 3-co ur t s ho ul d c on si de r whe th er t he tap es are au di bl e en ou gh to pr ov id e

th e ju r y w it h th e gi st of th e co nv ers at io ns , as well as whe th er th e de fen da nt was gi ve n an op po rtu ni ty to of fer hi s ve rs io n of th e in au di bl e po rti on s so as to cl ear up wha te ve r am bi gu it ie s t h e t a pe s m ig ht ha ve rai se d.

Tr og do n , 57 5 F .3d at 7 65 (cl ean ed up ).

W e ha ve rev ie wed th e reco rd in g. Lik e th e reco rd in g in Tr og do n , th e au di o in
th is cas e is of “ ad m it te dl y po or qu al it y .” Id

. at 76 5. Howev er, it s po or qu al it y di d no t

ren de r th e reco rd in g who ll y un tru st wor th y

. The go ve rn m en t in tro du ced th e ta pe s at tri al to sh ow De La To r r e ’s res po ns e to Sl av ic ek ’s accu sa ti on s th at he was

res po ns ib le fo r th e dr

ug s fo un d du rin g th e Aug us t 20 14 tra ffi c st op

. The co nt en ts of
th e au di bl e po rti on s of th e reco rd in g were su ffi ci en t to “ pr ov id e th e jury wit h th e gi st of th e co nv ers at io n[ ]. ” Id

. (cl ean ed up ). Fu rth er, De La Torr e te st ifi ed an d pr ov id ed
hi s own in te rp ret at io n of th e ex ch an ge

. The refo re, th e req ui rem en ts of Tr og do n were

sa ti sf ie d.

W e al so reject De La Torr e’s cl ai m th at th e ad m is si on of th e reco rd in g vi ol at ed
Fed eral Ru le of Evi de nc e 40 3. Befo re tri al an d la t e r , w h e n th e go ve rn m en t of fere d
th e reco rd in g in to ev id en ce, De La Torr e ob jecte d to it s ad m is si on

. He arg ue d th at th e
go ve rn m en t ha d no t la id a su ffi ci en t fo un da ti on an d th at an y st at em en ts m ad e by
Sl av ic ek on th e reco rd in g were in ad m is si bl e he ars ay

. The co ur t a d mi tt ed th e

reco rd in g s ub

ject t o a li m it in g i ns tru ct io n:

[T]he ob jecti on s are ov erru le d ex cep t wit h res pe ct to he ars ay

. And I’m
go in g t o g iv e th e jury a lim it in g i ns tru ct io n o n t ha t t op ic

.

In th e DVD th at y ou wil l be watc hi ng , Exh ib it No. 5, y ou m ay or

m ay no t co nc lu de th at cert ai n st at em en ts are m ad e by th e de fen da nt on th at DVD.

-1 4-Tho se st at em en ts y ou m ay acce pt an d co ns id er fo r wha te ve r

pu rp os e y ou th in k i s re le va nt

.
Any st at eme n ts th at y ou he ar on th at DVD fro m ot he r pe op le
, in cl ud in g th e in di vi du al by th e na m e of Sl av ic ek
, R y an Sl av ic ek
, y ou

are n ot to acce pt for th e tr ut h o f th e m at te r as se rte d.

Tha t i s al l t ha t I c an tel l you o n t ha t.

Tr. of Pr oc eed in gs , Vol . I, at 1 11
, Uni te d St at es v. De La To rr e , No. 8 :1 6- cr-0 01 15 (D. Neb. Oct . 25 , 20 16 ), ECF No. 1 07

.

De La Torr e m ad e no ob jecti o n t o t h e li m it in g in st ru ct io n. The refo re, we

rev ie w t hi s cl ai m fo r pl ai n erro r. Se e Uni te d St at es v. De Ro s i e r , 5 0 1 F.3 d 88 8, 89 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (s ta nd ard of rev ie w fo r un ob jecte d- to jury in st ru ct io ns ge ne ral ly); se e al so Uni te d S ta te s v. Will ia ms , 71 7 F .3d 35 , 42 (1s t Ci r. 20 13 ) (“ W he n a de fen da nt d o e s n o t in te rp os e a co nt em po ran eo us ob

jecti on to a li m it in g in st ru ct io n, we wil l

rev ie w an aft ert ho ught co m pl ai nt ab ou t th e in st ru ct io n on ly fo r pl ai n erro r.” (ci ta ti on s

om it te d) ); Uni te d St at es v. Fra se r , 44 8 F.3 d 83 3, 84 1 (6 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ W e rev ie w th e li m it i n g i n s t r u c t io n

. . . fo r pl ai n erro r be cau se Kah ari di d no t ob ject at tri al .” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ).

De La Torr e cl ai ms t h a t th e co ur t’s in st ru ct io n to th e jury no t to acce pt Sl av ic ek ’s st at em en ts in th e vi de o fo r th e tru th o f t h e mat te r as se rte d co nf us ed th e jury. Se e Fed

. R. Evi d. 40 3 (“ The co ur t m ay ex cl ud e rel ev an t ev id en ce if it s pr ob at iv e

va lu e is su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed by a da ng er of on e or m or e of th e fo ll owi ng : un fai r
pr ejud ic e, co nf

us in g th e is su es , m is le ad i n g t he jury, un du e de la y , was ti ng ti m e, or

ne ed le ss ly pr es en ti ng cu m ul at iv e ev id en ce.”)

. Bu t th e co ur t’s in st ru ct io n accu rat el y
st at ed th e la w on th e jury’ s co ns id erat io n of th e st at em en ts m ad e in th e reco rd in g. It
in fo rm ed th e jury th at th e pu rp os e fo r whi ch th ey co ul d co ns id er Sl av ic ek ’s he ars ay
st at em en ts was li m it ed ; ho wev er, no su ch co ns tra in ts cab in ed th ei r co ns id erat io n of

-1 5-th e st at em en ts m ad e by De La Torr e. De La Torr e ’s o bjec ti on s to th e reco rd in g’s

ad m is si on de m on st rat ed a co nc ern th at co u l d b e co nv ic te d on th e ba si s of
in ad m is si bl e he ars ay

. W e se e no erro r, pl ai n or ot he r w i s e , in gi vi ng th e jury an

accu rat e in st ru ct io n of th e la w in te nd ed to pr ev en t th at wro ng

. Se e, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Ki ng , 36 F.3d 72 8, 73 2 (8t h Cir. 19 94 ) (rec og ni zi ng li m it in g i ns tru ct io ns ’ ro le in

pr ev en ti ng jury fro m gi vi ng in ap pr op ria te co ns id erat io n to ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en ts ).
De La Torr e ha s no t sh own th at a da ng er rel at in g to an y of th e ba se s fo r ex cl us io n se t fo rth in Ru le 40 3 su bs ta nt ia ll y ou twei gh ed th e pr ob at iv e v a l u e o f th e ev id en ce.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s wit h res pe ct to th e reco rd in g of th e co nv ers at io n b et ween De La Torr e an d S la vi cek

.

2. Ta mmy Gal l’s Text

Mess ag es W e ne xt ad dr es s De La Torr e’s ch al le n g e t o th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of
Gall ’s tex t m es sa ge s.

A st at em en t m ad e by a de fen da nt ’s co co ns pi rat or is ad m is si bl e if th e

co co ns pi rat or m ad e it “ du rin g an d i n f u r t h eran ce of th e co ns pi racy.” Fed

. R. Evi d.
80 1( d) (2 )(E).

In or de r fo r an ou t-o f-co ur t st at em en t of a co -co ns pi rat or t o be ad m is si bl e, th e go ve r n m en t m us t sh ow by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce (1 ) th at a co ns pi racy ex is te d; (2 ) th at th e d e f e n d a n t an d th e de cl aran t were m em

be rs of th e co ns pi racy; an d (3) th at th e d ecl arat io n

was m ad e d ur in g th e co ur se an d in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy. Alt ho ug h co ur ts m ay co ns id er th e co nt en ts of th e st at em en ts , th e go ve rn m en t mu s t pr od uc e in de pe nd en t ev id en ce ou ts id e of th e st at em en ts th em se lv es to est ab li sh th e ex is te nc e o f th e co ns pi racy.

Uni te d St at es v. W

hi tl ow , 81 5 F.3 d 43 0, 43 4 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 16 ) (cl ean ed up ).

“ Co co ns pi rat or st at em en ts are in fu rth eran ce of th e c o ns pi racy if th ey di sc us s th e

-1 6-s u p pl y so ur ce fo r th e il le ga l dr ug s or id en ti fy a co co ns pi rat or ’s ro le in th e

co ns pi racy.” Uni te d St a t e s v. Ca za re s , 52 1 F.3 d 99 1, 99 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (cl ean ed

up ). A de cl ara n t n e ed no t be in di ct ed as a co co ns pi rat or to qu al ify un de r Ru le
8 0 1 ( d )(2 )(E). Se e Uni te d St at es v. Dav is , 4 57 F.3 d 81 7, 82 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ci t i n g Uni te d St at es v. Mah as in
, 36 2 F.3 d 10 71
, 10 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s ad m is si on of a co co ns pi rat or ’s st at em en ts un de r Ru le 80 1( d) (2 )(E) fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Uni te d St at es v. Exso n , 32 8 F.3 d 45 6, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v. Fr az ie r , 28 0 F .3d 83 5, 8 48 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) ).

The ev id en ce at tri al es ta bl is he d th at De La Torr e so ld dr ug s an d th at Gall was

arre st ed wit h Cas es , De La Torr e’s fat he r, aft er th ey co nd uc te d a m on it or ed dr ug bu y

. Gall te st ifi ed th at Cas as was th ere on hi s so n’s be ha lf an d act ed as a ru nn er fo r hi m

. Sh e al so t e s t ifi ed th at sh e bo th us ed dr ug s an d so ld th em an d th at De La Torr e

su pp li ed he r wit h dr

ug s fo r bo th pu rp os es on nu m ero us oc cas io ns du rin g th e co ur se of th e co ns pi r a c y. S h e ex pl ai ne d to th e jury th at th e te xt m es sa ge s co nc ern ed dr ug
tra ns act io ns be twee n he rs el f an d De La Torr e. The r e f o r e , s he qu al ifi ed as a

c oc on sp ira to r, an d th e te xt m es sa ge s were no nh ears ay

. Se e, e.g

. , Uni te d St at e s v

. Co nw a y , 7 54 F.3 d 58 0, 58 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (“ [E]vid en ce is su ffi ci en t to sh ow a

co ns pi racy whe re dr ug s are pu rch as ed fo r res al e.” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ); Uni te d St at es

v. Bell
, 57 3 F.2 d 10 40
, 10 44 (8 th Ci r. 19 78 ) (“ It is no t ne ces sa ry

. . . th at a de fen da nt 's

co m pl ic it y in a co ns pi racy be pr ov ed be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t fo r a st at em en t to be
ad m is si bl e un de r Fed

. R. Ev id

. 80 1( d) (2 )(E). The or di na ry ci vi l st an da rd of

pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t si nc e th e di st ric t co ur t is ru li ng on ad m is si bi li ty rat he r th an ul ti m at e gu il t.” (ci ti ng Uni te d S t a t es v. Petr oz zi el lo
, 54 8
F.2 d 2 0, 2 3 (1 st Cir . 19 77 )).

De Le Torr e’s ad di ti on al ch al le ng es to th e ad m is si on of th e te xt m es sa ge s are
pr es en te d as a Ru le 40 3 cl ai m bu t ul ti m at el y go to th e te xt m es sa ge s’ weig ht an d no t th ei r ad m is si bi li ty. W e di sc ern no rev ers ib le erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of
th e te xt m es sa ge s. Two of fic ers an d th e own e r o f th e cel l ph on e te st ifi ed as to ho w

-1 7-th e in ve st ig at or s cam e to po ss es s th e m es sa ge s. In ad di ti on , Gall di sc us se d th e na tu re

of he r te xt co nv ers at io ns wit h De La Torr e. The juro rs ha d th e te xt m es sa ge s av ai la bl e
to read for th em se lv es an d c ou ld ass ig n t o t he m an y weig ht th ey

saw fi t.

The refo re, we aff

irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s ad m is si on of t he tex t m es sa ge s.

D. Su ff ic ie nc y o f t he Evid en ce De La Torr e co nt en ds th at th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt hi s

co nv ic ti on s. He th us cl ai m s th at th e di st ric t co ur t er r o n e o u s ly de ni ed hi s Ru le 29

m ot io n. He arg ue s th at th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e is fat al ly weak en ed by in co ns is te nc ie s

7
in th e te st im on y of se ve ral wit ne ss es an d ev id en ti ary ga ps

. Fo r in st an ce, he no te s th at Sl av ic ek ha d a co nd it io na l pl ea ag reem en t wit h th e go ve rn m en t. He al so as se rts th at Sl av ic ek ’s te st im on y th at he di d no t ap pe ar n e r v ou s du rin g th e Aug us t 20 14 st op

co nt rad ic te d Offi cer Hol tm ey er’s te st im on y th at Sl av ic ek di d ap pe ar ne rv ou s. Add it io na ll y , he co nt en ds th at th e jury im pr op erl y i g n o r e d th e po ss ib il it y th at th e dr ug s fo un d in th e co ns ol e m ig ht ha ve be lo ng ed to Sl av ic ek ’s ch il d’s m ot he r, as th e jury ha d he ard ev id en ce th at th e car was he rs an d th at , li ke S l a v i c e k
, sh e ha d al so be en a us er of m et ha m

ph et am in e. On th e who le
, De La Torr e’s su ffi ci en cy arg um en ts

co ns is t of cred ib il it y ch al le ng es to th e va rio us go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es

. I n d i v i d u al ly

an d co ll ect iv el y , th es e arg um en ts do no t sh ow th e jury la ck ed su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to
fin d h im gu il ty of th e ch arg ed off en se s.

W e d efer su bs ta nt ia ll y

to a jury’ s fi nd in gs at t ria l:

W e rev ie w de no vo th e de ni al of a m ot i o n f o r ju dg m en t of
acq ui tt al ba se d on th e su ffi ci en cy of th e e v i d en ce. W e lo ok at th e

ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd i ct an d acce pt al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es th at can be dr awn fro m th e ve rd ic t. The st an da rd of rev ie w is ve ry st ric t, an d we wil l rev ers e a co nv i c t i on on ly if we

He do es no t ch al le ng e th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s req ue st fo r a ne w tri al

. 7

-1 8-co nc lu de th at no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e accu se d gu il ty

be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

Im po rta nt ly, we do no t rev ie w qu es ti on s in vo lv in g th e cred ib il it y of wit ne ss es , bu t le av e cred ib il it y qu es ti on s to th e jury. The refo re, ev en if th e ev id en ce ad du ced at tri al rat io na ll y su pp or ts co n f l i c ti ng hypo th es es , we wil l refu se to di st ur b th e co nv ic ti on

. The pr es en ce of on e po ss ib le in no cen t ex pl an at io n fo r th e go ve rn m en t’s ev i d e n c e do es no t pr ecl ud e a reas on ab le jury fro m reject in g th e ex cu lp at or y hypo th es is in fav or of g ui lt be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.

Uni te d St at es v. Muh amma d
, 81 9 F.3 d 1 0 5 6
, 10 60 (8 th Ci r.) (cl ean ed up ), cer t. de ni ed , 13 7 S . Ct. 2 18 (20 16 ).

De La Torr e co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t sh ou ld ha ve gr an te d hi s m ot io n fo r
acq ui tt al on th e ba si s th at “ [n ]o reas on ab le jury wou ld ha ve fo un d [h im ] gu il ty of th e th ree ch arg es th at were le ve le d ag ai ns t hi m in th e m at te r.” App el la nt ’s Br. at 15

. W e di sa gr ee. In th is cas e, th e jury hear d s uf fic ie nt ev id en ce t ha t, i f be li ev ed , s up po rte d

a fin di ng th at De La Torr e was gu il ty as ch arg ed

. Acco rd in gl y , we ho ld th at su ffi ci en t

ev id en ce s up po rts th e jury’ s v erd ic t.

E. In ef fe ct iv e Ass is ta nc e De La Torr e arg ue s th at hi s tri al co un se l was in effe ct iv e fo r fai li ng to ti m el y

m ak e a Fra nk

s cl ai m an d fo r de fic ie nt tri al pe rfo rm an ce. Howev er, th is cas e do es no t

pr es en t th os e sp eci al ci rcu m st an ces th at jus ti fy co ns id erat io n of tri al co un se l’s

po te nt ia l in effe ct iv en es s on di r e c t a pp eal

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. McAdo ry , 50 1 F.3 d
86 8, 87 2– 73 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Acco rd in gl y , we de cl in e t o r e v i e w De La Torr e’s
in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce-o f-co un se l cl ai m wit ho ut pre

jud ic e. Se e id . at 8 73

.

III. Co nc lu si on Acco rd in gl y , th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
-1 9-