[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 22-13660

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

VINCENT VO TRAN, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00006-KD-MU-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 1 of 19
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted Vincent Tran of conspiracy to distribute 

methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. For those crimes, the district court sentenced him 

to 150 months’ imprisonment with five years of supervised release. 

Tran now appeals his convictions and sentence. He argues 

that the district court erred when it denied his suppression motion, 

the evidence was insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction, 

and the district court erred when it imposed a sentence enhancement for methamphetamine importation.

We affirm Tran’s convictions. The district court did not err 

when it denied his suppression motion. And sufficient evidence 

supported the jury’s verdict on the conspiracy charge. 

We vacate Tran’s sentence and remand to the district court. 

The court erred when it imposed the importation enhancement 

because the government failed to prove, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that Tran possessed imported methamphetamine.

I. BACKGROUND

Tran raises three issues on appeal, related to the search of 

his residence and his suppression motion, the evidence at his trial 

and his acquittal motion, and the sentence he received and his sentence enhancement. We describe an earlier search of where Tran 

was living and then detail the facts relevant to each issue. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 2 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 3

A. The First Search

In the spring of 2021, deputies of the Mobile County Sheriff’s Office attempted to arrest Bailey Bostwick. But when deputies 

arrived in her neighborhood, she handed methamphetamine to her 

partner, Robert Draughon, and fled. The deputies captured 

Draughon and arrested him for trafficking methamphetamine.

Later that day, a deputy located Bostwick at Tran’s Irvington 

residence in Mobile. When deputies arrived there looking for 

Bostwick, Tran sent her outside. The deputies arrested Bostwick 

and searched her vehicle.

That same day, deputy Raylene Busby of the Mobile County 

Sheriff’s Office obtained a warrant to search Tran’s Irvington residence. When deputies executed the warrant, they found marijuana 

and digital scales with methamphetamine residue. They arrested 

Tran for possession of a controlled substance and marijuana. Tran 

was incarcerated and then released in early fall. Upon his release, 

he lived with his girlfriend at a residence on Azalea Road.

B. The Second Search and Tran’s Suppression Motion

In the fall of 2021, two months after Tran’s release, Busby

obtained a second warrant to search the Azalea Road residence in 

Mobile, where Tran was living. Busby obtained this warrant because a drug dealer she arrested told her that he bought more than 

a pound of methamphetamine from Tran.

To obtain the Azalea Road warrant, she drafted and submitted an affidavit, which alleged that cooperating defendants had 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 3 of 19
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

recently purchased marijuana and methamphetamine from Tran 

and seen firearms at his residence. The affidavit stated that cooperating defendants believed Tran had large amounts of methamphetamine delivered to his residence. And it noted that Tran was a target of federal and state drug investigations.

A state court judge issued the search warrant. When deputies, including Busby, executed the warrant, they discovered drugs 

and drug paraphernalia, including methamphetamine, cocaine, 

marijuana, a vacuum sealer, digital scales, and a glass pipe. The 

deputies then received and executed an arrest warrant. When they

arrested Tran, they recovered approximately 26 grams of methamphetamine from his person. 

A grand jury indicted Tran on one count of conspiracy to 

distribute methamphetamine, two counts of possession with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine, and one count of possessing a 

firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. Tran pleaded

not guilty.

Before trial, Tran moved to suppress evidence seized from 

the Azalea Road residence. He argued the district court should suppress the evidence because a deficient affidavit supported the search 

warrant. Specifically, Tran asserted that the affiant, Busby, relied on 

others’ statements rather than her personal knowledge, failed to 

mention where she executed a previous search warrant, and failed 

to disclose the number of cooperating defendants. Tran argued

that, under the totality of the circumstances, the affidavit failed to 

establish the reliability, veracity, or basis of the cooperating 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 4 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 5

defendants’ knowledge. He also maintained that the good-faith exception was inapplicable because the affidavit so lacked probable 

cause that no reasonable official would believe probable cause existed to support the search. 

The district court held a suppression hearing, at which 

Busby testified. She described the events leading up to swearing the 

warrant affidavit, including her search of Tran’s Irvington residence and her separate interviews with the cooperating defendants. She explained that she had known the cooperating defendants 

for years and “had a history with both of them,” although she had 

used neither as an informant before. Doc. 92 at 56.1 She included 

that information in her affidavit, detailing Tran’s continuous involvement with drugs and noting other individuals who had identified Tran as their supplier.

Busby also testified that, after she submitted the affidavit, 

she learned that Tran made additional drug transactions. To secure 

the search warrant, she visited the state court judge’s residence, 

presenting the affidavit and the additional information about Tran’s 

recent drug activity. Busby believed the warrant “to be reasonable” 

and to contain “sufficient probable cause.” Id. at 75. 

The district court found the search warrant affidavit insufficient. It drew this conclusion based on the lack of corroboration of 

the cooperating defendants and the lack of evidence of their reliability. But the court found that the state court judge maintained his 

1 “Doc.” numbers are the district court’s docket entries.

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 5 of 19
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

neutral and detached role and that the affidavit contained some indicia of probable cause, rendering Busby’s belief in the existence of 

probable cause reasonable. The district court therefore concluded 

that the officials relied in good faith on the search warrant. And 

because the officials relied in good faith on the warrant, the evidence was admissible. The district court denied the motion to suppress.

C. The Conspiracy Evidence and Tran’s Acquittal Motion

At trial, the government attempted to demonstrate that 

Tran conspired with Bostwick, Draughon, and others to distribute 

methamphetamine. To prove this conspiracy, the government introduced drug distribution evidence it uncovered, Tran’s statements and cell phone evidence, and evidence from alleged coconspirators.2

The government pointed to evidence uncovered during the 

searches and arrests to establish a conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The first search, for example, revealed digital scales 

with methamphetamine residue. The second search revealed even 

more: a bag of 18 grams of methamphetamine, a vacuum sealer, 

two digital scales, and a half pound of methamphetamine packaged in eight different containers. When deputies arrested Tran, 

they found 26 grams of methamphetamine on his person.

2 We recount the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict 

because this is a sufficiency challenge.

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 6 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 7

The government also introduced Tran’s statements and evidence found on his cell phone. Tran told police, after being read his

Miranda rights, that he owned the 26 grams of methamphetamine 

they found on him and that he dealt drugs. The government uncovered text messages and photographs from Tran’s phone as well.

The messages discussed buying bags of drugs. The photographs 

depicted marijuana and a white substance. To explain the phone 

evidence, the government introduced testimony from Amber 

Westfall, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, whom the district court qualified as a drug trafficking expert. 

Westfall discussed the text messages and how drug dealers communicate. She admitted that Tran’s text messages appeared to focus 

on marijuana. 

In addition to the evidence uncovered from the search and 

arrest, Tran’s statements, and evidence from Tran’s phone, the government introduced evidence from and about Tran’s alleged coconspirators. One of those coconspirators was Bostwick, who testified for the government. Bostwick admitted that she used methamphetamine with and purchased methamphetamine from Tran.

She bought methamphetamine from Tran roughly once a week.

She had been buying from Tran since March 2021 and had obtained 

between 10 and 20 ounces of methamphetamine from him, even 

though he was not her main source of methamphetamine. She said 

that she regularly distributed methamphetamine. And she testified 

that Tran supplied the methamphetamine she had handed to 

Draughon when she fled the police. Police found 160 grams of 

methamphetamine when they arrested Draughon. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 7 of 19
8 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

Tran moved for a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy 

count, which the district court denied. The jury found Tran guilty 

of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with 

intent to distribute methamphetamine. Tran renewed his acquittal 

motion, and the district court denied it.

D. Tran’s Sentencing

Before sentencing, a probation officer prepared a presentence investigation report. The probation officer recommended a 

two-level enhancement because the offense involved the importation of methamphetamine. The following evidence was introduced 

at trial regarding importation. Westfall, the DEA special agent and 

drug trafficking expert, testified that drug trafficking operations in 

Houston and Atlanta sourced the methamphetamine found in Mobile. According to Westfall, if the methamphetamine came from 

Houston, the drug was “smuggled directly from Mexico.” Doc. 88 

at 209. If it came from Atlanta, the drug was smuggled from Miami 

or Texas. And she testified that “super labs” in Mexico made methamphetamine with a purity level of “about 99 percent.” Id. at 210–

11. Based on her training and experience, Westfall said that methamphetamine located in Mobile with a 99 percent purity level 

“most likely originated from Mexico.” Id. at 212. Tran previously 

had stipulated that the methamphetamine the police recovered had 

a purity level above 99 percent.

Tran objected to the enhancement, arguing that the government did not prove the factual basis for the importation enhancement by a preponderance of the evidence. He thought the 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 8 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 9

methamphetamine’s purity failed to prove whether it was imported 

from Mexico and Westfall’s testimony merely speculated that possibility. 

The district court overruled Tran’s objection, finding sufficient evidence to support the importation enhancement. It imposed the importation enhancement and sentenced Tran to 150 

months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised release. Tran timely appealed.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We use “a mixed standard” to review a district court’s denial 

of a suppression motion, reviewing for clear error the district 

court’s factual findings and reviewing de novo “the application of 

law to those facts.” United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th 

Cir. 2016). We “constru[e] the facts in the light most favorable to”

the government, which is “the prevailing party below.” Id. We review de novo “whether the good faith exception applies” but review 

for clear error “the underlying facts upon which that determination 

is based.” United States v. Morales, 987 F.3d 966, 974 (11th Cir. 2021)

(internal quotation marks omitted). “The government bears the 

burden of demonstrating that the good faith exception applies.” Id.

We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges de novo, 

considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices

in the government’s favor. United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 

1296 (11th Cir. 2013). We may overturn a jury’s verdict only if no 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 9 of 19
10 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the 

jury to convict. Id. at 1297.

When looking at Tran’s sentencing, we review the district 

court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d 

779, 783 (11th Cir. 2007). The government bears the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts necessary 

to support a sentencing enhancement. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

We organize our discussion around the three issues Tran 

raises on appeal.

A. Whether the District Court Erred in Denying Tran’s 

Suppression Motion

The district court did not err when it denied Tran’s suppression motion because the Fourth Amendment’s good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies. The Fourth Amendment requires that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place 

to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const. 

amend. IV. To deter Fourth Amendment violations, the Supreme 

Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally “preclude[es] 

the use of evidence obtained in violation of” the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984).

The “judicially created [exclusionary] rule” has a “judicially 

created exception”: the good-faith exception. Davis v. United States, 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 10 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 11

564 U.S. 229, 248 (2011). The good-faith exception renders the exclusionary rule inapplicable when police act “in objectively reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant.” Leon, 

468 U.S. at 922. The exception is unavailable when (1) the judge 

who issues a warrant is misled by false information; (2) the issuing 

judge abandons his neutral and detached role; (3) the affidavit lacks 

probable cause indicia, rending official belief in its existence unreasonable; or (4) the warrant is facially deficient, rendering official reliance on it unreasonable. Id. at 923. When the exception is available, it requires us to ask only “whether a reasonably well trained 

officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all 

of the circumstances.” Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 145 

(2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Tran argues that the good-faith exception is inapplicable, 

stating that the issuing judge abandoned his neutral and detached 

role, and the affidavit lacked probable cause indicia. Both arguments fail. 

The issuing judge, Tran argues, abandoned his neutral role 

because the information provided to him was insufficient to make 

an independent assessment of probable cause. But even if this information were insufficient, it does not mean that the issuing judge 

abandoned his neutral and detached role. See United States v. Martin, 

297 F.3d 1308, 1318 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Just because the affidavit is 

later found to be lacking in probable cause does not mean the [issuing judge] served as a mere rubber stamp.”). That is because 

when we analyze whether the issuing judge abandoned his neutral 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 11 of 19
12 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

and detached role, we rarely look to the affidavit itself. Rather, we 

analyze surrounding factors, such as whether the judge read the 

affidavit, whether he relied solely on his relationship with the affiant, or whether the affiant’s identity interfered with the judge’s independent review of the case’s facts. Id. Tran has not argued, and 

the record does not reveal, any surrounding circumstances that 

cause us to question the issuing judge’s neutrality and detachment.

We do, however, look to the affidavit to determine whether

it lacks probable cause indicia. United States v. Robinson, 336 F.3d 

1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003). To be lacking in probable cause indicia, 

the affidavit must “provide[] no hint as to why the police believed 

they would find incriminating evidence in the residence.” United 

States v. Morales, 987 F.3d 966, 976 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). The affidavit here provides many hints about

why the police believed they would find illegal drugs in the Azalea 

Road residence. For example, the affiant spoke with cooperating 

defendants who stated that they purchased marijuana and methamphetamine from someone in the Azalea Road residence. The cooperating defendants also reported that they saw methamphetamine at the residence and being delivered to it.

True, the district court found that these statements failed to 

provide sufficient probable cause due to the lack of corroboration 

and reliability. But that does mean the affidavit provides no hints 

as to why the police thought they would uncover marijuana and 

methamphetamine at the Azalea Road residence. And, as detailed 

above, this affidavit provides those hints. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 12 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 13

Because the good-faith exception is available, we must ask 

whether, considering all the circumstances, a reasonably welltrained officer would have known that the search was illegal. See 

Herring, 555 U.S. at 145. We conclude that a reasonably welltrained officer would not have known that the search was illegal. 

The affidavit contained the exact location to be searched and explained how the suspected drugs were connected to that place. And

“we can look beyond the four corners of the affidavit and search 

warrant to determine whether [an officer] reasonably relied upon 

the warrant.” Martin, 297 F.3d at 1318. 

When we look beyond the affidavit at the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that Busby reasonably believed that 

probable cause existed when she executed the warrant. She learned 

from a cooperating defendant that Tran sold him methamphetamine and lived at the Azalea Road residence. Another cooperating 

defendant told her that Tran had large amounts of methamphetamine and marijuana, and Busby had reviewed emails between a

cooperating defendant and Tran. She knew about other investigations into Tran’s suspected drug activity. On these facts, a welltrained officer with Busby’s knowledge would not have known 

that the search was illegal. The district court therefore did not err 

when it applied the good-faith exception and denied Tran’s suppression motion.

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 13 of 19
14 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

B. Whether the Evidence Was Sufficient to Support 

Tran’s Conspiracy Conviction

The evidence was sufficient to support Tran’s conspiracy 

conviction. To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the government 

had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tran and at least one 

other person agreed to commit a drug-related offense, that Tran 

knew of the conspiracy, and that he agreed to become a member. 

United States v. Louis, 861 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing 

21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846). In his brief, Tran appears to contest only the 

first element, whether an “agreement exist[ed] between two or 

more person to achieve an unlawful objective.” United States v. 

Achey, 943 F.3d 909, 916 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). He argues that the government failed to prove an agreement because the text messages introduced concern marijuana, not 

methamphetamine. And he states that the government failed because Tran’s relationship with Bostwick was a buyer-seller relationship, which “does not, by itself, form a conspiracy.” Id. at 917. Each 

argument fails. 

First, Tran argues that the text messages “fail to provide sufficient evidence of a methamphetamine conspiracy.” Appellant’s 

Br. 40. Two issues exist with this argument. The first is that sufficient evidence exists for the conspiracy conviction even without 

the text messages. As discussed below, the frequency of methamphetamine sales, volume of methamphetamine sold, and circumstantial evidence provide sufficient evidence for Tran’s conspiracy 

conviction. The second issue is that the text messages’ focus on marijuana fails to undermine the methamphetamine conviction. In 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 14 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 15

fact, it may even bolster the conviction. Westfall testified that it 

was common for individuals engaged in the trafficking of methamphetamine to sell other drugs as well. Tran’s text message argument therefore fails. 

Second, Tran argues that he and Bostwick “shared no more 

than a buyer/seller relationship.” Id. at 49. But here, sufficient evidence existed for the jury to believe that Tran “knew the drugs 

were for distribution” rather than Bostwick’s “personal drug 

habit.” Achey, 943 F.3d at 917 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Specifically, the frequency of methamphetamine sales, volume of 

methamphetamine sold, and circumstantial evidence of a methamphetamine conspiracy were sufficient evidence to prove the agreement. 

On frequency, we have held that an “agreement may be inferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that results in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.” 

United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999). The government presented to the jury evidence of a continuing relationship. Bostwick admitted to buying methamphetamine from Tran 

roughly once a week since March 2021. That exceeds the frequency 

we have found sufficient in past cases. See, e.g., United States v. 

Beasley, 2 F.3d 1551, 1560 (11th Cir. 1993) (concluding that evidence 

established “far more than merely a buyer-seller relationship” in 

part because the buyer “purchased [illegal drugs] from [the seller] 

on several occasions” over a month). 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 15 of 19
16 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

On volume, we have held that a “conspiracy to distribute 

controlled substances may also be inferred from a drug transaction 

where the amount of drugs allows an inference of a conspiracy to 

distribute drugs.” Achey, 943 F.3d at 917. The government presented 

evidence that Tran sold and moved large quantities of methamphetamine. Bostwick, for example, testified that she obtained between 10 and 20 ounces of methamphetamine from Tran. And the 

methamphetamine Tran provided to her shortly before her arrest 

weighed over 160 grams, or 5.6 ounces. These large amounts of 

methamphetamine allowed to jury to infer an agreement. 

On circumstantial evidence, we have held that the existence 

of a conspiracy agreement may be proved “from the conduct of 

the alleged participants or from circumstantial evidence of a 

scheme.” United States v. Wenxia Man, 891 F.3d 1253, 1265 (11th Cir. 

2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Alleged participant

Bostwick testified that she distributed methamphetamine regularly. 

The government introduced physical evidence that allowed the 

jury to infer that Tran was involved in a scheme. When officers 

searched Tran’s home, they uncovered multiple sets of scales, some 

with methamphetamine residue on them. They also found a bag of 

18 grams of methamphetamine, a vacuum sealer, and a half pound 

of methamphetamine packaged in eight different packages. 

Bostwick’s admission and the physical evidence could lead a jury to 

infer an agreement. 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 16 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 17

Because the evidence sufficiently supported the conspiracy 

conviction, the district court did not err when it denied Tran’s acquittal motion. 

C. Whether the District Court Erred in Imposing the Importation Sentence Enhancement 

The district court erred when it overruled Tran’s objection 

and imposed a two-level enhancement for importing methamphetamine. The Sentencing Guidelines instruct a court to impose a twolevel enhancement if among other things “the offense involved the 

importation of . . . methamphetamine or the manufacture 

of . . . methamphetamine from listed chemicals that the defendant 

knew were imported unlawfully.” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual 

§ 2D1.1(b)(5).

The government had to prove, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that a factual basis existed for this sentencing enhancement. See United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d at 783. A district 

court cannot “speculate concerning the existence of a fact which 

would permit a more severe sentence under the guidelines.” United 

States v. Cataldo, 171 F.3d 1316, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). A court, instead, must base its factual 

findings “on reliable and specific evidence.” United States v. Newman, 

614 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2010). 

Here, the government failed to produce reliable and specific 

evidence to support the importation enhancement. The government, and the district court, relied exclusively on Westfall’s testimony that methamphetamine in Mobile with a purity level of 99 

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 17 of 19
18 Opinion of the Court 22-13660

percent or higher “most likely originated from Mexico.” Doc. 88 at 

212. But Westfall failed to provide reliable and specific evidence that 

the methamphetamine Tran possessed came from Mexico. She testified that most methamphetamine in Mobile came from Houston 

or Atlanta. The methamphetamine from Houston was “smuggled 

directly from Mexico” and the methamphetamine from Atlanta 

came from Miami or Texas. Tran’s methamphetamine could have 

come from any of those places: Miami, Texas, or Mexico. Thus, it 

was speculative to conclude that Tran’s methamphetamine came 

from Mexico. 

The government cites one unpublished case to support the 

district court’s determination. Appellee’s Br. 27 (citing United 

States v. Rivera-Fernandez, No. 19-12990, 2021 WL 6144162 (11th 

Cir. Dec. 30, 2021) (unpublished)). But even in that case, the government provided more than just an agent’s testimony about 

where the drugs may or may not have originated. In addition to a

Drug Enforcement Administration report like the agent’s testimony here, the government in that case “provided the district court 

with messages between the methamphetamine supplier in Mexico 

and a co-defendant” and “submitted an additional conversation between the supplier and an undercover agent.” Rivera-Fernandez, 

2021 WL 6144162, at *3. But here, the government has provided 

nothing further. Because the government failed to provide reliable 

and specific evidence supporting that the methamphetamine recovered from Tran originated in Mexico, the district court erred when 

it imposed the importation enhancement.

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 18 of 19
22-13660 Opinion of the Court 19

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, we affirm Tran’s convictions, 

vacate the district court’s sentence, and remand for resentencing. 

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; 

REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 22-13660 Document: 41-1 Date Filed: 04/25/2024 Page: 19 of 19