FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 05-50550

D.C. No. JUAN EMANUEL LOCOCO, a/k/a JOHN 

LOCOC CR-03-00687-RGK- ; JUAN EMANUEL LOCOC;

JOVANNI JOHN LOCOCO; JUAN DE LA 02

ROSA LOCOC; JUAN LOCOCO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 05-50552

D.C. No. JUAN EMANUEL LOCOCO, a/k/a JOHN 

LOCOC CR-03-00689-RGK- ; JUAN EMANUEL LOCOC;

JOVANNI JOHN LOCOCO; JUAN DE LA 02

ROSA LOCOC; JUAN LOCOCO,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 05-50590

v. D.C. No. 

CR-03-00689-RGK- JOHN D. EDWARDS, JR., a/k/a Seal

A; Cabbage; Junior, 1

Defendant-Appellant. 

16753
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHARLOTTE VENIA JACKSON, a/k/a

CHARLOTTE RENE JACKSON,

CHARLETTE TINA JACKSON,

CHARLOTTE VENDA JACKSON, TINA No. 05-50721 JACKSON, NICJNEY HONES,

CHARLOTTE D.C. No. VENRA JACKSON, 

RENADA CR-03-00687-RGK- JOHNSON, CHARLOTTE VENA

JACKSON, RICKNEY HONES, NICKEY 03

JONES, RENADA CARLETTE JOHNSON,

RENADA C. JACKSON, RENADA

CARLOTTE JOHNSON, RENADA

CHARLOTTE JOHNSON, CHARLOTTE

VENIA JACKSON, NIGKNEY JOHNES;

TINA FLY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

16754 UNITED STATES v. LOCOCO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHARLOTTE VENIA JACKSON, a/k/a

CHARLOTTE RENE JACKSON,

CHARLETTE TINA JACKSON,

CHARLOTTE VENDA JACKSON, TINA No. 05-50722

JACKSON, NICKNEY JONES, D.C. No.

CHARLOTTE VENRA JACKSON,  CR-03-00689-RGKRENADA JOHNSON, CHARLOTTE VENA 03

JACKSON, RICKNEY JONES, NICKEY OPINION JONES, RENADA CARLETTE JOHNSON,

RENADA C. JACKSON, RENADA

CARLOTTE JOHNSON, RENADA

CHARLOTTE JOHNSON, CHARLOTTE

VENIA JACKSON, NIGKNEY JOHNES;

TINA FLY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

October 19, 2007—Pasadena, California

Filed December 27, 2007

Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, A. Wallace Tashima

and M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion

UNITED STATES v. LOCOCO 16755
COUNSEL

Gretchen Fusilier, Carlsbad, California, for defendantappellant Juan Emanuel Lococo. 

Alissa Sawano Peterson, Irvine, California, for defendantappellant John D. Edwards, Jr. 

Philip Deitch, Van Nuys, California, for defendant-appellant

Charlotte Venia Jackson. 

Jennifer A. Corbet, Kevin S. Rosenberg and Thomas P.

O’Brien, Assistant U.S. Attorneys; George S. Cardona, Acting U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, California, for plaintiffappellee. 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Defendants pled guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine. We consider the government’s application for the

wiretap on which its case was built, an allegation of prosecutorial misconduct and the constitutionality of defendants’ sentences. 

[1] 1. The wiretap application describes the investigative

techniques the police tried and explains how they failed: Confidential informants were either incarcerated, unwilling to testify or else distrusted by the targets; efforts to recruit other

informants failed; and attempts to gather evidence by other

means—including direct and hidden surveillance, trash

searches and searches of paroled gang members’ homes—

yielded nothing. Defendants haven’t shown any basis to doubt

the application’s representations. “Law enforcement officials

need not exhaust every conceivable investigative technique

16758 UNITED STATES v. LOCOCO
before seeking a wiretap order.” United States v. Staves, 383

F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court didn’t abuse

its discretion in finding that the application justified the wiretap. 

[2] 2. Defendants haven’t shown that the wiretap application contained false statements or material omissions, so

there was no need for a hearing under Franks v. Delaware,

438 U.S. 154 (1978). The claim that Special Agent King

reviewed Jackson’s calls since March 2002 isn’t demonstrably false; though the police’s pen register authority only

began in July of that year, King also had Jackson’s telephone

toll records, which may have reached back to March. Nor did

the application understate informant CS-1’s closeness to Jackson; on the contrary, it acknowledged that CS-1 could buy

drugs from her. 

Though the application didn’t mention that Jackson was in

the Blood Stone Villains gang, that didn’t matter; the point

was that Jackson’s boyfriend was in the target Pueblo Street

Bishops gang. Nor was there any reason for the application to

mention Lococo or the sources close to him, as he wasn’t the

wiretap’s target. 

[3] 3. Defendants haven’t shown that the government’s

failure to produce its recordings of Lococo’s phone calls prejudiced anyone’s defense or affected anyone’s decision to

plead guilty. See United States v. Tucker, 8 F.3d 673, 675 (9th

Cir. 1993). The district court didn’t abuse its discretion by not

dismissing the indictment. 

[4] 4. In his plea colloquy, Lococo waived his right to

have a jury determine the amount of drugs the conspiracy

sold. There was no need for the district court to advise him

of this right at sentencing. 

[5] Lococo’s plea agreement reserved the government’s

right to “supplement the facts stipulated” and to “seek any

UNITED STATES v. LOCOCO 16759
sentence within the statutory maximum,” so offering additional evidence at sentencing didn’t breach the agreement. 

[6] Though Lococo denied knowing that his coconspirators converted the powder cocaine he sold them into

crack cocaine, he admitted that he joined a conspiracy to distribute crack. The district court therefore didn’t violate the

Sixth Amendment when it sentenced him based on the crack

his co-conspirators distributed. See United States v. Mercado

Irizarry, 404 F.3d 497, 504 (1st Cir. 2005) (“[T]he maximum

statutory penalty available to the district court at sentencing

for a defendant convicted of a drug conspiracy is based on the

drug quantity and amount . . . attributable to the conspiracy

as a whole.”). 

[7] 5. Edwards admitted that he joined a conspiracy to

distribute over 50 grams of crack cocaine and that he had a

prior drug felony trafficking conviction. Because those admissions suffice to support a sentence of life in prison, see 21

U.S.C. § 841(b)(1), the additional facts the court found at sentencing didn’t increase the maximum sentence for which he

was eligible. The court’s fact-finding therefore did not violate

Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). 

[8] 6. In their plea agreements, Lococo and Edwards

waived the right to appeal their sentences. Edwards claims his

waiver wasn’t valid, but his plea colloquy shows he waived

the right knowingly and voluntarily. These waivers bar defendants from appealing the district court’s interpretation of the

Guidelines, its calculation of the Guidelines range, its alleged

failure to consider the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a), and the reasonableness of the sentences imposed.

We therefore dismiss these portions of defendants’ appeals. 

DISMISSED in part and AFFIRMED in part.

16760 UNITED STATES v. LOCOCO