District Judge of the WesternDistrict of Loui sian a, sittin g bydesi gn ation. * 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 05- 41424

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA , P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee

v. S A L VA D O R G A R C IA , JR
. ; JO R G E R O L A N D O G A R C IA , S R
. ; T O R IB IO AR RIAG A- GUE RR ER O, D efen d a n ts- A p p ell a n t s

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas , M cA l l en D ivi si on

B ef ore G A R Z Aan d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es, an d H IC K S , D i st ri ctJu dg e. * JE N N IFE R W
. E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg e: Aj u ry i n th e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T e x a s co n v i c t e d S a lv a d o rG a r c ia , J r ., J o r g e R o la n d o G a r c ia , S r ., a n dT o r ib io Arr i ag a- G ue r r e r o o f m ul t i pl e c har ge s r e l atedt o adr ug- t r af f i c ki ng o pe r at i o n. T h e defen da n t s app ealt h ei r c on vi ct i on s by chall en gi n g vari ou s di st ri ctcourt
r ul i ngs . W e f

i nd n o m e r i t i n t he de fe nda nt s ’ ap pe al s and af f i r m t he c o nvi c t i o ns on al lcoun t s. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 05- 41424

2 I . B A CK GRO UND A
. F a cts “W e rec i te the fa cts i n the lig h t m ost fav ora b l e to th e v erd i ct. ” Un i t ed S ta tes v. O lis , 429 F
. 3d 540 , 541 n. 1 ( 5th C i r. 200 5)

. In R i o G ran de C i t y, T exas, S al vad or G arci a ow n ed an d control l ed p ropert y on M i dw ay S t reett h at bordered the R i o G ra n d e R ive r. S a lva d or G a rcia d i rected a d ru g tra ff i ck i n g o p era ti on that brou gh t m arij u an a an d cocai n e acros s t h e R i o G ran de river an d i n t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates th rough veh i cl e paths on hi s M i dw ay p ropert y. I n a t yp i cali n st an ce, Sal vadorG ar c i a w oul d appr ove a day ’ s t r af f i c ki ng ope r at i on and Juan G ar c i a, Sal vadorG ar c i a’ s nephew , w oul d di r ec t t he ope r at i on’ s spe c i f i c c onduct

. Jo r ge G ar c i a, Sa lva do rG ar c i a’ s br o t he rand J uan G ar c i a’ s fat he r , pa r t i c i pa t e d i n t he
o pe r at i o n b y pr o vi di ng an i nt e r i m s t o r ag e l o c at i o n f o rdr ugs a thi s ho m e o n Agua V erde R oad

. Toribi o A rri aga - G u errer o parti ci pa t ed i n severalcapa ci t i es, som et i m es assi st i n g w i t h t h e act u alt ran sport ati on of t h e dru gs, an d ot h er t i m es s e r vi ng as a l o o ko ut f o r l aw e nf

o r c e m e nt ag e nt s . Se ve r al o t h er p e r s o ns par t i c i pat ed i n t h e opera t i on atvar i ous t i m es . O vert he c our se of s eve r al
m o nt hs i n 2 00 3, t he o pe r at i o n t r af f i c ke d l ar ge am o unt s o f b o t h m ar ij uanaa nd cocai n e on an al m ostdaily basi s. O n t he m or ni ng of

N ove m ber30, 2003, SalvadorG ar c i a, Juan G ar c i a, A rriag a -G u erre ro, a n doth er p a rti ci p a n ts plan n ed to acq u i re a n dtran sp ort a l a r g e q u a n t i t yo f

ma r ij u a n a . A r r i a g a - G u e r r e r o , w h o h a dl e f tt h e o p e r a t i o n s o me ti m e d u ri n g th e p rece d i n g few w ee k s, i n form ed Ju a n G a r c ia of h i s d esire to
r e tu r n a n da s k e dfo raro le in th a t d a y ’ s o p e r a tio n . A lth o u g h S a lv a d o rG a r c ia
o ppo s e d Ar r i aga - G u errer o’ s c on t i n u ed p art i ci pa t i on , Ju an G arci a al l o w e d it , a nd i nst r uct ed Arr i aga- G uer r er o t o se r ve as t he ope r at i on’ s l oo kout at a nearby ga sN o. 05- 41424

3 station

. A rriag a -G u erre ro a gr ee d

. Ju a n G a rcia an dtw o o th er p a rti ci p a n ts drove a G M C Y u kon t o t h e r iver l an di n g n ear t h e M i dw ay p ropert y, l oad ed
s e ve r alhund r e d p o unds of m ar ij uanai nt o t he v e hi c l e , a nd h e ad e d b ac k t o t he M i dw ay p ropert y w h ere t h e group som et i m es s t ored veh i cl es i n shed s. M ea n w h i l e, gro u n ds en sors a l erted U n i tedS tates B ord er P a trol a ge n ts t o act ivi t y n ear t h e river l an di n g. T w o agen t s w en tt o t h e river l an di n g, di scovered evi denc e o f r ec ent ac t ivi t y, and bega n f ol l ow i ng t i r e t r ac ks t ow ar ds t he M i dw ay property. Jua n G arci a received w arn i n g of t h e a pp roachi n g govern m en tagen t s, andl e f tt he o t he r t w o m e m be r s o f t he o pe r at i o n att he M i dway p r o pe r t y t o t e nd to the l oa dof m a rij u a n a . A s i m m i gr a ti on ag en ts n ea r e d the M i d w a y p rop erty
c o mp o u n da n do b s e r v e dp e r s o n s f l e e i n gt h e v e h i c l e s , o n e o f t h e a g e n t s s a w t wo bund l e s o f

w hatt he age ntbe l i e ve d t o be m ar ij uanafallo uto f t he Yuko n. The ag e nt s ’s e ar c h o f

t he Yuko n, t he o t he rv e h i cl e s o n t he pr o pe r t y, a nd t he buil di ngs t he r e y i e l de d 7 59 kil o gr am s of m ar ij uana , s e ve r alf i r e ar m s , a nd
a c c o m p a n y in ga m m u n itio n . O n D e c e mb e r 2 , 2 0 0 3 , o f f i c e r s c o n d u c t i n ga n u n r e l a t e di n v e s t i g a t i o n c a me
u pon Jorge G arci a’ s A gu a V e rd e property, w h i ch em an ated a st rong od or of
m arij u an a. A f

t er obt ai n i n g a w arran t , t h e of f i cers searc h ed the h om e an d sei zed 3, 47 0 ki l o gr am s o f m ar ij uana , as w e l la s a no t he rf i r e ar m a nd a m m uni t i o n. One pe r s o n t e s t i f

i e d t hathe s aw Jo r ge G ar c i a f l e e t he A guaV e r de pr o pe r t y ne art he t i m e of t h e sei zure.N o. 05- 41424

The first j uryfound Salva dor Garciaguilty on Counts Five through Twenty-S ix , an d 1 Salva dor Garciadoe s not appealth at portion of the verdict. 4 B
. D i s t r i c tCour tPro c e e di ngs I n t hi s c as e ’ s f

i r s tt r i al , t he g o ve r nm e ntc har ge d S al vadorG ar c i a and A r r i aga- G uer r er o w i t h t he f ol l ow i ng: (1) C on sp i ra cyto po sse ss m ore tha n 1,00 0 k i l og ra m s of m a rij u a n a w i th in te n t t o d is tr ib u te fr o m O c to b e r th r o u g h D e c e m b e r2 , 2 0 0 3 , see2 1 U. S

. C. § § 8 46 , 8 41 ( a) ( 1) , a nd (2) P oss ess i on of a p p rox i m a tel y 7 5 9 k i l og ra m s of m a rij u a n a w i th in ten t t o d is tr ib u te o n N o v e m b e r3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , see§ 8 4 1 (a )(1 ). Th e g ove r nm ental so c harge d SalvadorG ar c i a w i t h t he f ol l ow i ng: (3 ) M a in ta in in gd r u g -in v o lv e dp r e m is e s , see2 1 U .S .C . § 8 5 6 , (4 ) P o s s e s s io n o f fir e a r m s in fu r th e r a n c e o f a cr im e , see1 8 U. S

. C. § 9 24 (c ) ( 1) (A) , a nd ( 5) –( 26) T w en t y- t w o coun t s of vi ol ati n g f i n an ci al report i n g requ i rem en t s, see3 1 U .S .C . § 5 3 2 4 (a ). S a lv a d o rG a r c ia a n dA r r ia g a -G u e r r e r o p r e s e n te dm o tio n s fo ra c q u itt a l o n a ll
coun t s att h e end of

t h e governm en t ’ s case- i n - chi ef, an d ag ai n bef ore t h e di st ri ct
cou rt ch a rg ed the j u ry ; the distri ct cou rt de n i ed the m oti on s. T h e j u ryfa i l ed to
r e t ur n av e r di c to n Count s O ne t hr o ughF o ur , and t he di s t r i c tc o ur tde c l ar e d a
m i st ri alas t o t h ose c ou n t s. 1 F or t h e sec on d tr i al , t h e governm en t ’ s s u perced in gindic t m en tcharged S al vad or G arci a, A rri aga - G u errer o, an d Jorge G arci a w i t h i den t i calversi on s of t he f i r s tt r i al ’ s CountO ne c o ns pi r ac y andCountTw o po s s e s si on ch ar ge . The i ndi c t m e nta l s o c har ge d Sal va do rG ar c i a w i t h i de nt i c alv e r s i o ns o f t he CountN o. 05- 41424

5 Th r ee dr ug- i nvolv e dpr em i se s and C ountFour f i r ear m c harge s. N ew C ountFive c harge d SalvadorG ar c i a and Jo r ge G ar c i a w i t h pos se ss i on o f m or e t han 1000 k i lo g r a m s o f m a r iju a n a w ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u te o n D e c e m b e r2 , 2 0 0 3
. S ee21 U
. S. C. § § 8 46 , 8 41 ( a) ( 1)

. The j ur y f o und Salva do rG ar c i a guil t y of a l lb utt he f i rearm s c h arge, an d the di st ri ct court sentenced h i m t o a 365

- m on t h t erm of i m pr i s o nm e nt
. The j ur y f o und Arr i ag a- G ue r r e r o g ui l t y o f t he c o ns pi r ac y and possessi on charges, an d the di st ri ctcourtsentenced h i m t o a 240

- m on t h t erm of i m pr i s o nm e nt
. The j ur y f o und Jo r ge G ar c i a guil t y o f the c o ns pi r ac y and possessi on charges, an d the di st ri ctcourtsentenced h i m t o a 235

- m on t h t erm of i m p ri son m en t. A ll th r e e d e fe n d a n ts a p p e a le d

. W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n o v e rth e s e a p p e a ls fr o m fin a l ju d g m e n ts
. S ee28 U
. S

. C

. § 1291

. W e c o n soli da t ed the ap pea l s f or p u r p o s e s o f a r g u m e n t a n dw e n o w co n s o lid a te th e m fo rd is p o s itio n . S eeF e d

. R. A p p . P . 3 (b )(2 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Raban al , 5 0 8 F .3d 7 4 1 , 7 4 2 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). I I . DI S CU S S I ON A
. S a lva d o r G a rc ia 1. R ul e 4 04(b) In h i s first issu e, S a lva d or G a rcia ch a l l en ge s h i s con victi on s on allcou n ts by argu i n g t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtvi ol ated F ederalR u l e of E vi den ce 404 (b) w h en i tadm i t t ed evi den ce of coc ai n e t raf

f i cki n g an d cocai n e use. D u ri n g t h e course of t h e f ou r- d a ytr ia l on t h e m arij u an a cha rges, t h e di st ri ctcourtadm i t t ed
e vi de nc e s ho w i ng t hatSa lva do r G ar c i a’ s o pe r at i o n m o ve d c o c ai ne t hr o ught he M i dway p r o pe r t y us i ng t he s am e v eh i cl es a nd t he s am e pa s s ag e w ay , t hatt he
co n sp i rat ors pa ckag ed the cocai n e i n bags of horse f

eed, an d that Sa lvad or G arci a took coc ai n e to M cA l l en , T exas. T h e di st ri ctcourtal so adm i t t ed evi den ceN o. 05- 41424

Salva dor Garciaconce de s th at h e failedto obj ect toth e cocaine te stim ony , an d als o 2 that he faile d to ask for a limiting instruction

. His inclusion of the Rule 404 (b) argu ment in his motion for n ew trial do es not ch an ge the st an dardof review. See United Statesv . Ab ro ms , 947F .2d 12 41 , 1 24 9 n.6 (5thC ir. 1 991 ) (applyingplain errorreview toanevidentiary argument raised only in a motionfor new trial). Before JuanGarcia testifie d to the cocaine trafficking

an d cocaine u se, the government notified the court of its intention to intro duce the evidence, and the court accepte d the evi denceas proof of t hed efen dant s’ knowledge. Had Salva dor Garciaobjected, the districtcourt coul d h ave ma de an on-the-record ruling in accordance with United States v. Beechu m , 5 8 2F .2 d 8 9 8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 7 8) (e nb anc)

. See United States v. Greenwood, 9 7 4F .2 d 1 4 4 9 , 1 4 6 2&n .8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 2). 6 sho w i ng t hatSalvad orG ar c i a gav e m em ber s of t he o per at i on c oc ai ne as pa ym en t f

or t h ei r w ork, an d that t h e m em bers c on sum ed cocai n e f or t h e pu rpose of st aying aw ak e du ri n g th e m arij u an a an d cocai n e t raf f i cki n g operati on s. Acc o r di ng t o Sa lva do rG ar c i a, t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d ha ve e xc l ude d t he evi den ce un der R u l e 404 (b) becau se t h e governm e n t fa i l ed to give S al vad or G a r c ia n o tic e o f its in tr o d u c tio n , a n d b e c a u s e th e e v id e n c e ’ s p r o b a tiv e v a lu e d id
n otoutw ei gh i t s un fai r prej u di ce. B ecau se S al vad or G arci a fai l ed t o obj ect w h en t h e governm en ti n t rodu ced th e e v id e n c e , w e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is i o n s fo rp la in e r r o ro n ly

. S ee 2 Uni t e d St at e s v . Akpa n , 40 7 F
. 3 d36 0 , 37 3 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 5 ); Un it ed S t at e s v. Mares , 4 0 2 F .3d 5 1 1 , 5 2 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). A n ap p ell a te cou rt m a y n ot c orre ct a n erro r the de fen d a n t fa i l ed to r ai s e i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur tunl e s s t he r e i s “ ( 1) e r r o r , ( 2) t hati s pl ai n, an d ( 3) t h at af

fect s sub st an t i al ri gh t s. ” “ If al lt h ree c on di t i on s are m etan ap pe l l at e c o ur t m ay t he n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i o n t o no t i c e a f orf ei t ed errorb u ton l y i f (4) t h e err or s eri ou sl y af fect s t h e fai rness, in te g r ity , o rp u b lic re p u ta tio n o f ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s .” Mares , 402 F. 3d at 520 (c i t at i on o m i t t ed) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Cot t on , 535 U
. S

. 6 25, 6 31 ( 200 2) )

. S al vad or G arci a’ s l ack-of

- n ot i ce argum en tfai l s because
e ve n i f t he g o ve r nm e ntpr o vi de d i ns uf f i c i e ntnot i c e of

i t s i nt e ntt o i nt r o duc e t heN o. 05- 41424

7 c oc ai ne evi denc e, Sal vadorG ar c i a fai l ed t o s at i sf y h is b ur de n o f

de m o ns t r at i ng th e re q u is ite p r eju d ic e . S ee Mares , 402 F. 3d at520 ;Uni t e d St at e s v . D uf f aut , 3 1 4 F .3 d2 0 3 , 2 0 9 (5 th C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ T o d e m o n s tr a te p la in e r r o r , an a ppe l lant
m u s t sh o w c le a r o r o b v io u s e r r o r th a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts
. . . .” (e m p h a s is a d d e d )); seealso Uni t e d St at e s v . O lano , 50 7 U
. S

. 72 5 , 73 4 ( 1 9 9 3 ) (“ It i s t h e defen da n trat h er t h an th e G o vernm en tw h o bears t h e bu rden of persua si on w i t h res pect t o prej u di ce. I n m ostcases , a courtof app eal s c an n ot
c or r ec tt he f

or feit ed e r r orunl es s t he def endants how s t hatt he e r r orw as p r eju d ic ia l.”); P u cket tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , N o. 07–9712, sl i p op. at 13 (U
. S. M ar . 25, 200 9) ( “ E l i m i n ati n g t h e t h i rd pl ai n - errorprongt h rough sem an t i cs m ak es a
n u ll ityof O lano ’ s in s tr u c tio n th a t a d e fe n d a n tn o r m a lly‘ m u s t m a k e as p e c ific
s h o w in go f p r eju d ic e ’ in o r d e rto o b t a i n r e l i e f. ” ). A lt h o u g h S a lv a d o rG a r c ia ’s
s u b s ta n tiv e 4 0 4 (b ) a r g u m e n t— th a t t h e co c a i n e e v id e n c e ’ s p r o b a tiv e v a lu e d id
n o t o u tw e ig h its u n fa irp r eju d ic e
— is m o r e co m p lic a te d , it to o fa ils to m e r it
r e v e r s a l. R u le 4 0 4 (b ) lim its th e a d m is s ib ilityo f e x tr in s ic e v id e n c e , b u t n o t in tr in s ic
ev i d en c e . E
. g. , Un itedS ta tes v. S u m lin , 4 8 9 F .3d 6 8 3 , 6 8 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 7 ). “E vi den ce of

an acti s i n t ri n si c w h en itan d evi den ce of t h e cr i m e charged are in e x tr ic a b lyin te r tw in e d , o rb o th a c ts a r e p a r t o f a s in g le c r im in a l e p is o d e , o rit
w a s a n ece ssa ry p reli m i n a ry to th e crim e ch a rg ed

. ” I d. I f evi den ce i s ext ri n si c, Rul e 4 04 (b) a nd Un i t ed S t ate s v . Be e c hum , 582 F
. 2d 898 ( 5th C i r. 197 8) ( en ba nc ) , r e quir e t hatc o ur t s f i r s tde t e r m i ne “ t hatt he e xt r i ns i c e vi de nc e i s r e l e va nt to a n is s u e oth er t h a n th e d e fe n d a n t’s ch a r a c te r , i
. e. , m otive , op p ortu n i ty, i n ten t, p r e p a r a tio n , p la n , k n o w le d g e , id e n tit y , o ra b s e n c e o f m is ta k e o ra c c id e n t.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. S an d ers , 3 43 F. 3d5 11 , 5 18 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 003)

. “ Se c o nd ‘t heN o. 05- 41424

8 evi denc e m ustpos se ss pr obat ive val ue t hat i s nots ubst ant i al l y o ut w ei ghed by i ts u n d u e p r eju d i ce a n dm u st m ee t t h e oth er re q u i rem en ts of R u l e 4 0 3
. ’” I d. ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. A n d ers on , 9 3 3 F .2d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 )). W e ne ed notdec i de w het hert he c oc ai ne e vi denc e t ri gg ere d R ul e 4 04(b) be c aus e w e c an i de nt i f y no pl ai n e r r o ri n t he di s t r i ctcou rt ’ s i m pl i e d Bee c hum
a n a ly s is

. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. N guyen , 504 F
. 3d561 , 574 ( 5t h C i r . 200 7)

. The task o f ba l a n ci n g p rob a tive va l u e a ga i n st u n fai r p reju d i ce re q u i res th a t cou rts
e xa m i ne anum be ro f hi ghly fac t
- de pe nde ntc i r c um s t anc e s , i nc l udi ng t he
s i m i l ar i t y be t w e e n t he e xt r i ns i c a c t s a nd c har ge d o f fe ns e s , th ev i o l e nc e i nvo lve d, t he r e l at ive m ag ni t ude o f t he a c t s , t he t i m e de vot ed t o the ev i de nc e , a nd t he extent t o w h i ch the m att er proved by the other- actevi den ce h a s al readybeen
e s ta b l i s h e d

. See, e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Hernan d ez- G u evara , 162 F. 3d 863, 872 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. E m ery , 682 F
. 2 d 493, 499–50 0 ( 5t h C i r . 1982) (“T h e a p p li ca tion of B e e c h u m t o th e fa cts of an y case r equ i res a com m on sense a ss e ss m e n t of a llth e circ u m sta n ce s s u rr o u n d in gth e ex trin sic o ffen se .”)

. To be sur e, t he i nt r oduc t i on o f c oc ai ne e vi dence i nt o am ar ij uana t r i al
c ar r i e s i nhe r e ntpr ej udi c e , b utt he q ue s t i o n Rul e 4 03 pos e s i s w he t he rt he cocai n e evi den ce’ s u nfa irprej u di ce sub st an t i all y ou t w ei gh s i t s rel evan ce. H ere, t he c o c ai ne e vi de nc e i nt r odu ce d a tt r i alw as r e l e va ntt o i s s ue s o f i nt e nta nd k n o w le d g e , a m o n go th e r s . S ee N guyen , 504 F
. 3 d at 574; Uni t e d S t at e s v. Pa rz ia le , 9 47 F. 2d123 , 1 28–2 9 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 1)

. J uan G ar c i a’ s t e s t i m o ny o c c upi e d a ppr o xi m at e l y 17 0 pa ge s o f t he r e c o r d, a nd t he m o s ts i gnif i c ant por t i ons of

the c oc ai ne te st i m ony oc c upi ed l es s t han 10 pages
. H e e xpl ai ned t hat t he c ocain e a nd m ar ij uana t r af f i c ki ng oc c urr ed o n Sal vadorG ar c i a’ s M i dw ay property du ri n g t h e sam e peri od of t i m e , e n g a g ed alm osti den t i calm et h ods ofN o. 05- 41424

For almost i dentical rea sons, Salvador Garci a’s conclusory assertion that the di strict 3 court’sa dmis sionof the cocaine evidenceviol ate d the Fif thAm en dm ent i s without merit. See Story v. C

ollins , 92 0 F .2d 1 247 , 12 54 (5thC ir. 1 991 ) (“An extraneou s offen se maybeadmitted intoevidence without viol ating thed uep r oc es s clause if the government makes a‘strong showin g that the defendant committed theoffense’ and if the extraneous offen se i s ‘rationally conne cte d with theoff ens e charge d. ’” ( quoting En riquez v. P rocu nier , 752 F.2 d 11 1, 1 15 (5th C ir

. 1 9 8 4)) ). 9 ac qui sit i on, t r anspo r t , s t or age, and di st r ibu ti on , and i nvolved si m i l ar pa rticip a n t s. H e al so expl ai n ed the m et h od byw h i ch the operati on pack aged
c o c ai ne o n Sa lva do rG ar c i a’ s M i dw aypr o pe r t y, a nd t hatt he m e m be r s o f t he
o pe r at i o n us e d c o c ai ne t o s t ay awake w hi l e pa r t i c i pa t i ng i n t ra f f i c ki ng operati on s. Tw o ot h er m em bers of t h e operati on t est i f i ed f or a m u ch shorter t o t alpe r i o d, a nd p r o vi de d as i m i l ar ly de t ail e d e xp l ana t i o n of the c o c ai ne p a c k a g in ga n dtr a n s p o r ta tio n a c ti v itie s . B e c a u s e “R u le 4 0 4 (b ) e v id e n c e is p a rti cu l a rl y p rob a tive w h ere the go ve rn m en t ha s ch a rg ed con sp i ra cy , ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. G ordon , 780 F. 2d 1165, 1174 ( 5t h C i r . 1986), and bec ause s eve r al
c o n s i d e r a t i o n smi lit a t e di nf a v o ro f a d m i t t i ng t hi s c o c ai ne e vi de nc e
— nam e l y, t he h ig h d e g r e e o f s im ila r it ya n dth e d o m in a n c e o f n o n -c o c a in e e v id e n c e in th is
c a s e
— w e ca n n o t c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t co u r t co m m itt e d p la in e r r o rw h e n it d e c id e dto a d m it t h e co c a in e e v id e n c e in s p i t e o f i ts in h e r e n t p r eju d ic e . S ee E m ery , 6 8 2 F .2 da t 5 0 0

– 0 1 ; Bee c hum , 5 8 2 F .2 da t 9 1 0 (“W h e r e . . . th e e x tr in s ic
o f fe ns e e vi den ce i s r e l e va ntt o a n i s s ue s uc h a s i nt e nt , i tm ayw e l lb e t hatt he
e vi de nc e ha s pr o ba t ive f o r c e t hati s no ts ubs t ant i al l y o ut w e i ghe d byi t s i nhe r e nt p reju d ice .”)

. 3 A s an ext ens i on of

hi s R ul e 4 04(b) ar gum ent , SalvadorG ar c i a ar gues t hat des p i t e hi s fai l u re t o obj ector t en der an y al t erna t ive, t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed
w h en i t fai l ed to su asp o n tep rov i d e a s p ecif i c in stru cti on co n cern i n g th e li m i tsN o. 05- 41424

The jury chargeal so included onein struction that outlined thepurposes for which the 4 jury coul d u se Rule40 4(b) e vi d en c e, but that instructionaddressed onlyevidence of Arriaga -Guerrero’sact s. 10 of t he R ul e 4 04(b) c oc ai ne e vi denc e. Becaus e SalvadorG ar c i a fai l ed t o o bj ec tat t r i ala nd r e que s tt he i ns t r uc t i o n he no w s e e ks , w e r e vi e w the c o nt e nto f t he d i s t r ic t c o u r t’s ju r yin s tr u c tio n fo rp la in e r r o ro n ly

. S ee Uni t e d St a t e s v. D e l ga do , 4 01 F
. 3d2 90 , 2 99 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5)

. “ Pl ai n e r r o ro c c ur s o nl y w he n t he i ns t r uc t i o n, c o ns i de r e d a s aw ho l e , w as s o c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us a s t o r e s ul tint he l i k elih oo dof a gra ve m i sca rriag e of j u sti ce.” Un itedS ta tes v. D a v is , 19 F. 3d 166, 1 6 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); seealso Pa rz ia le , 94 7 F
. 2 da t 1 2 9 ( “F u rth erm ore , ‘ fai l u re to give l i m i t i n g i ns t r uc t i o ns i s g e ne r al l y he l d no tt o b e pl ai n e r r o r . ’” ( quo t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. B erm u d ez , 526 F
. 2d 89, 97 ( 2d C ir. 1 9 7 5 )))

. T h i s s t an da rd of
r evi ew i s pre di c at ed, i n part , on o ur r eal i zat i on t hatdi st r i c tc our t s c annotbe
e xp e c t e d t o f

o r e s e e a l lpo t e nt i als o ur c e s o f e vi den t i ar y c o nf

us i o n a nd
c ont r ove r sy , and ar e no tr equi r ed to i ssue panopt i c s et s of pr eve nt ive i nst r uct i ons . Fort r i al s t o f unct i on ef

fec t ively, par t i es t hem se lves m ustpl ay an ac t ive ro l e i n c r e at i ng t he j ur y c har ge ; t he i nc l us i o n o f Rul e 4 04 (b) i ns t r uc t i o ns i s no e xc e pt i o n. Salva do rG ar c i a’ s a r gum e ntfail s be c aus e t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s i ns t r uc t i o ns suff i ci en t l y m i t i gated the ri sk that prej u di ce r esul t i n g f rom t h e coc ai n e evi den ce
w o ul d a f

fe c tt he v e r di c t
. I n a ddit i o n t o i ns t r uc t i o ns o n t h e elem en t s o f t he
o f fe ns e s , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s i ns t r uc t i o ns i nc l ude d t he f o l l o w i ng ad m o ni s hm e nt unde rthehe ad i ng “ CA U TI O N

— C O N S ID E R O N L YC R IM E S C H A R G ED ” : “The de fe nda nti s no to n t r i alfora ny ac t , c o nduc t , o ro f fe ns e no ta l l e ge d i n t he i ndi c t m e nt
. ” I n Pa rz ia le , 947 F. 2d 123, t he di st r i c t c our t adm i t t ed R ul e 4 04(b) 4 evi den ce and i t s c h arge gav e t h e essenti al el em en t s of each coun tw i t h an al m ostN o. 05- 41424

11 i de nt i c al ad di t i o nal i ns t r uc t i o n: “ [ T] he de fe nda nt i s no t o n t r i al f o r any ac tor con d u ct or off

en se n ot all eg ed i n th e i n d i ctm en t. ” I d. a t 1 2 9
. A s w e d idin Pa rz ia le , i d. , w e c o nc l ude i n t hi s c as e t hatt he di s t ri ctcour t ’ s i ns t r uc t i o ns su ff i ci en tl y g u a rd e d a ga i n st t h e risk o f u n fai r p reju d i ce to th e d efen d a n t. Acc o r di ngly, t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o a dm i tt he e vi de nce o f c o c ai ne t raf f i cki n g an d cocai n e use w as not r eversibl e err or. 2. I n ef

fect ive A ssi st an ce of C ou n sel In his sec on d i ssue, Sa lva d o r G arci a argu es t h at hi s at t orney ren dered i ne f fe c t ive a s s i s t anc e o f

c o uns e lb y fail i ng t o o bj e c tt o t he c o c ai ne e vi de nc e , a nd by fa il i n g t o m i t i gate t h e ef fect s of t h e coc ai n e evi den ce. O u r s t an da rds f or evaluati n g cl ai m s of i n ef fect ive assi st an ce of coun selun der St r i c kland v. W ash i ngt on , 4 66 U
. S. 6 68 ( 19 84 ) , a r e w e l le s t ab l i s he d: F ir s t , [a d e fe n d a n t] m u s td e m o n s t r a t e th a th is a t t o r n e y ’s perf orm an ce fel lbel ow an obj ect ive st an da rd of reasonab l en ess. T h is courtha s descr ibed t h at s t an da rd as “ requ i ri n g t h at c ou n sel r es ear c h re l evantfac t s and l aw , orm ake an i nf or m ed de c i si on t hat cert ai n aven u es w i l lnot be f rui t f u l

. ” Secon d, [ a defend a n t] m u st al so prove t h at he w as p rej u di ced by h i s at t orney’ s s u bstand ard per fo r m a nc e . “ [ T] o p r o v e p r ej ud i c e , [ a d e fe nd a nt] m us ts ho w t hat t h e r e is ar e a s o n a b le p r o b a b il it yth a t , b u tfo rc o u n s e l’s u n professi on alerr ors, t h e res u l t of t h e proceedi n g w ou l d h ave been d iffe r e n t.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Herrera , 4 12 F. 3d5 77 , 5 80 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 5) (f o o t no t e s o m i t t e d) ( q uo t i ng Un itedS t ate s v. Con ley , 349 F
. 3d 837 , 841 ( 5th C i r. 200 3) )

. H ow ever,
w e do n otreach S al vad or G arci a’ s St r i c kland cha l l en ge becau se i ti s prem ature. [ T] he “ gener alr ul e i n t his c i r c ui ti s t hata c l ai m of i nef fec t ive as s i s t anc e o f

c o uns e lc anno tb e r e s o lve d o n dir e c ta ppe alw he n t he c l ai m ha s no tb e e n r ai s e d b e f o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur ts i nc e noN o. 05- 41424

12 o ppo r t uni t y e xi s t e d t o de ve l o p t he r e c o r d o n t he m e r i t s o f t he a lle g a tio n s .” O n lyin th o s e ra r e o c c a s io n s w h e r e th e re c o r dis suff i ci en t l y dev el oped w i l lthe court un dertake to consi der cl ai m s of in a d e q u a te re p r e s e n ta tio n o n d ir e c t a p p e a l. If w e ca n n o t fa ir ly e va l uat e t he c l ai m f

r o m t he re c o r d, w e m us tdec l i ne t o c o ns i de rt he i s s ue w i t ho utpr ej udi c e to a de fe nda nt ’ s r i ghtt o r ai s e i ti n a subs equentpr oc ee di ng. Un i t ed S t ate s v. G u l ley , 5 2 6 F
. 3 d8 0 9 , 8 2 1 ( 5 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) (c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d) ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Higd on , 8 3 2 F .2 d3 1 2 , 3 1 3

– 1 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 )). T h is
c as e fal l s w i t hi n t hatg e ne r alr ul e b e c aus e t he r e c o r d r e ve al s ne i t he rt he r e as o ns f orSalvadorG ar c i a’ s at t or ney’ s dec i si ons nort he avail abi l i t y o f al t er nat ive s t r a te g ie s . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Agui lar , 503 F. 3d 431, 436 ( 5t h C i r . 2007) (r ef usi ng t o he ara St r i c klandc l ai m b e c aus e “ t he di s t r i c tc o ur td i d n oth ol d a h e a r in ga n dth e r e c o r d d o e s n o tp r o v id e s u ff ic ie n td e t a ila b o u ttr ia l c o u n s e l’s
c o n d u c t a n dm o tiv a tio n s ”); Un i t ed S t ate s v. G arci a-Jasso , 4 7 2 F
. 3 d 2 3 9 , 24 5 ( 5 th C i r . 2006) (r ef

usi ng t o he ara St r i c klandcl ai m b e c aus e “ t he r e as o ns f o r[t he
a tt o r n e y ’ s ] d e c is io n s a n da n yp la u s ib le a lte r n a tiv e s t r a te g ie s a v a ila b le to h im
a r e u n c le a r”); Un i t ed S t ate s v. G ordon , 346 F. 3d 135, 137 ( 5 th C i r . 2003) (r ef usi ng t o he ara St r i c klandcl ai m becau se “ [t] h e rec ord ha s not been devel oped
w ith re g a r dto co u n s e l’ s m o tiv a tio n fo rh is tr ia l ta c tic s ”). W h ile S a lv a d o rG a r c ia
m a yr a i s e t h i s a r g u m e n t in ala te rp r o c e e d in g , see Uni t e d S t at e s v. V i l legas- R od rigu ez , 1 71 F. 3d2 24 , 2 30 ( 5t h Ci r . 199 9) ( “ N o r m al l y, t he ap pr o pr i at e m e c hani s m f o rr ai s i ng t hi s c l ai m w o ul d b e aha be as c o r pus p r o c e e d in gp u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 .”), it is n o t a g r o u n dfo rr e v e r s a l in th is
a p p e a l.N o. 05- 41424

13 B
. T ori bi o A rri ag a-G u errero 1. D o ubl e J e o pa r dy In h i s firsti ssu e, A rriag a -G u erre ro ch a l l en ge s h i s con victi on s on bo th
coun t s by argu i n g t h at t h e di st ri ctcourterr ed w h en i tden i ed h is m ot i on f or a j u dg m en tof

acqu i t t ali n t h e sec on d tr i al

. Sp eci f i cal l y, A rri aga - G u errer o argu es t h at t h e f

i rstt ri al ’ s evi den ce w as i n suff i ci en tt o sup p o rt a verdi cton ei t h er cha rge, an d that t h e f i rstt ri al ’ s i n suff

i c i e nc i e s t r i gg e r e d Doub l eJeopa rdy C l au se protec t i on s prohibi t i n g h i s r eprosecuti on i n t h e seco n d tr i al

. B ecau se A rri a g a -G u e rr ero di d n otrai se t h i s argum en ti n t h e di st ri ctcourt , w e revi ew o n lyfo rp la in e r r o r . See, e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. O d u t ayo , 4 0 6 F
. 3 d38 6 , 39 2 ( 5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Arr i ag a- G ue r r e r o ’ s D o ubl e J e o pa r dyCl aus e a r gum e ntfail s b e c aus e t he govern m en tpl aced h i m i n j eopa rdy on ly on ce. I n t h e success ive prosecuti on context , t h e au t h ori t i es hol d t h at a defenda n t ’ s dou bl e j eopa rdy c on cerns ari se on l y af t er or i gi n alj eopa rdy att ach es and term i n a te s . R i cha rdson v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 68 U
. S. 3 17 , 3 25 ( 19 84 )

. N o m at t e r t he s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he e vi de nc e , “ t he fa ilu r e o f th e ju r y to r e a c h a v e r d ic t is n o t a n e v e n t w h ic h te r m in a te s je o p a r d y .” I d. at 325 –26 . A rr ia g a- G u errer o’ s c i t ati on t o B u rks v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 4 37 U
. S. 1 ( 197 8) , i s i n ap posi t e, f or “B urks di d not deal w i t h t he s i t uat i on i n w hi c h a t r i al
c o u r t d e c l a r e s am is tr ia l b e c a u s e o f a ju r y ’ s in a b ilityto a g r e e o n av e r d ic t.” R i cha rdson , 4 6 8 U .S . a t 3 2 3
. R a th e r , “B u rks esta b l i sh ed on l y t h a t a n ap p ell a te court’ s f i n di n g of

i n suff i ci en t evi den ce t o convi cton ap pea lf rom a j u dg m en tof
con victi on i s f

or d ou b l e j eo p a rd y p u rp ose s, the eq u iv a l en t of an acq u i ttal

. ” I

d. at325.N o. 05- 41424

Whileour holdingin U n i te dSta tesv . W

i lk i ns on , 601 F.2d7 9 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 7 9), 5 supp ortsArriaga -Guerrero’s argu me nt, Achob edecided that Richardsonh ad effectively overruled Wilkinson . See Achob e , 56 0 F .3d at 2 66–67. 14 R i c har ds o n and B urks ’ s b o u n d a r ie s a r e n o lo n g e ra n o p e n q u e s tio n in th is C ir c u it. S ee Uni t e d S t at e s v. Achobe , 5 6 0 F .3 d2 5 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); V a n d er b ilt
v . Col l i ns , 9 9 4 F .2d 1 8 9 (5t h C ir

. 1 9 9 3 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mi l ler , 952 F. 2d 866 (5 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). A f t er [Ju st i ce of

B ost on Mu n i ci

pa lCou rtv. Lyd on , 466 U
. S. 294 ( 19 84 ) ] a nd R i cha rdson , it a p p e a r s th a t t h e r e a r e on lyth r e e p o s s ib le j eopa rdy t erm i n ati n g even t s: ( 1) an acqu i t t al , ( 2) a t ri alcourt determ i n ati on of

i n suff i ci en cy l ead i n g t o a di rect ed verdic tof a c q uit t al , and ( 3) an unre ver se d det er m i nat i on o n di r ec tappealt hat t he r e w as i ns uf

f i c i e nte vi den ce to s upp o r tt he c o nvi c t i o n. I n t he abs enc e of one of t hes e eve nt s, a l at er det er m i nat i on t hatt her e w as in s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e a p p a r e n tlyw ill n o t b a rare tr ia l. V a n d er b ilt , 994 F
. 2d at 195 (f ootn o te s o m i t t ed). W i t h res pect t o app eal s f rom fir s t-t r ia l s u f

f i c ie n c yd e c is io n s , “Mi l lerhol ds t h at af t er R i cha rdson , t h e B urks b a r on l y p rev en ts retri a lw h en the ap p ell a te cou rt i n f actr e ve r s e s f

o ri n s u f f i c i e nt
ev i d en ce.” I

d. T h u s, w h en d efen d a n ts ra i se fi rst- tri a li n su ff i ci en cyarg u m en ts in a s u b s e q u e n t t r ia l, Mi l ler , V a n d er b ilt , a n dn o w A chob e di ct ate t h at our t ask i s nott o de t er m i ne w het heror i gi nalj eo par dy s houl d have c eas ed bef or e r et r i al becau se of t h e i n suff i ci en cy argu m en t ; rat h er, w e determ i n e onl y t h e na rrow er ques t i on o f

w het heror i gi nalj eo par dy act u all y c e a s e db e fo r e re tr ia l. A c hobe , 560 F .3 da t 2 6 5

– 6 8 ; V

a n d er b ilt , 994 F
. 2d at 195
. Th e di st ri ctco u rt den i ed 5 A rri aga - G u errer o’ s f i rst
- t ri alm ot i on s f

or acqui t t al , t h e f

i rstt ri al ’ s j u ry di d n ot
a c q u it A r r ia g a - G u e r r e r o , a n dA r r ia g a -G u e r r e r o d idn o t p r e s e n t a fa v o r a b le
a p p ell a te ru l i n g on th e suffi ci en cy i ssu e t o t h e dist ri ct cou rt. A s a re s u lt,N o. 05- 41424

15 A rri aga - G u errer o’ s f i rst
- t ri ali n suff

i ci en cy an d D ou bl e Jeopa rdy C l au se argu m en t s do not dem on st rat e pl ai n err or. 2. Su f

f i ci en cy In h i s seco n dissu e, A rriag a -G u erre ro ch a l l en ge s h i s con victi on s on bo th
cou n ts bya rg u i n g th a t th e seco n dtri a l ’ s ev i d en ce w a s i n su ff i ci en t t o su p p ort a verdi cton ei t h er c h arge. B ecau se A rri aga - G u errer o rai sed h is suff i ci en cy a r g u m e n tin am o t io n fo rju d g m e n to f a c q u it t a l , w e r e v ie w th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s den i alof

t h at m ot i on by exam i n i n g t h e ev i den ce and al lreasonab l e i n ferences draw n t h eref

rom i n t h e l i gh tm ostfavorab l e t o t h e verdi ct , an d ask i n g w h et h er a r a tio n a l tr ie ro f fa c t c o u ldh a v e fo u n dg u ilt b e y o n dare a s o n a b le d o u b t. See,
e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. V aldez , 45 3 F
. 3 d2 5 2 , 2 5 6 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 6 ). C on traryto Arr i ag a- G ue r r e r o ’ s a s s e r t i o n, “ [i] ti s no tne c e s s ar y t hatt he e vi de nc e e xc l ude every reason able h yp ot h esi s of i n n ocence or be w h ol l y i n consi st en tw i t h every c onc l usi on e xc eptt hatof gui l t , pr ovi ded a r eas onabl e t r i erof fac tc oul d f

i nd t hat th e evide n ce estab l i sh es gu i l t b ey on da re a son a b l e d ou b t. ” Un itedS ta tes v. B ell , 6 7 8 F
. 2 d54 7 , 54 9 & n . 3 ( 5 th C i r. U n i t B 19 8 2 ) (en ba n c ). “A ju r y is f ree to ch oo se a m on g re a son a b l e con stru cti on s of t h e ev i d en ce.” I d. at549. A rri aga - G u errer o’ s convic t i on on C ou n t O n e— conspir acy t o possess m ore t han 1, 000 ki l ogr am s of m ar ij uana w i t h i nt entt od i s t r ib ut e— r equi r ed pr oo f t hat “( 1 ) a n ag ree m en t existedbe tw ee n the d e fe n d a n t an don e or m ore pe rson s to vi ol ate t h e app l i cabl e na rcot i cs l aw s; ( 2) each d efen da n tkn ew of the con spi racy andi nt e nde d t o j o i n i t ; a nd ( 3) t he de fe nda ntpa r t i c i pa t e d v o l unt ari l y i n t he
con sp i ra cy . ” Un ited S ta tes v . Infa n te , 4 0 4 F .3 d3 7 6 , 3 8 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ); see Un i t ed Stat es v. Agu i rreAgu i rre , 716 F
. 2d293 , 297 ( 5t h C i r . 198 3) ( “ I n adr ug conspir acy case, how ever, u n d e r t h e provi si on s of t h e drugconspi racy st atute,N o. 05- 41424

16 p ro o f of a n ov e rt a ct in fu rth e ra n ce of th e co n sp ira cyis n o t n e ce ss a ry .”)

. A r r i aga- G uer r er o’ s c onvi c t i on o n C ountT w o— pos se ss i on of approxi m at ely 759 ki l ogram s of m ar ij uana w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e— r equi r ed pr oo f of “ ( 1) p oss ess i on , (2) k n ow l ed ge , a n d (3) i n ten t to d i strib u te. ” V aldez , 453 F
. 3d at260
n . 7. Th e governm en t ’ s ai di n g an d ab et t i n g t h eory on C ou n tT w o requi red proof th a t “ th e d e fe n d a n t: (1 ) a s s o c ia te dw ith acr im in a l v e n tu r e ; (2 ) p a r tic ip a te din th e ve n tu re; a n d(3) s ou gh t b y a cti on to m a k e th e v en tu re su cces sful. ” Infa n te , 404 F. 3d at385. Ini t i al l y, Ar r i aga - G u errer o argu es t h at t h e j u ry coul d n otha ve rel i ed u pon Ju an G arci a’ s test i m on y becau se of Ju an G arci a’ s r egu l ar druguse. H ow ever, i tis n ow w el lest abli shed t h at “w h et h er j u dg es dou bt t h e cr edibi l i t y of a w i t n ess, e v e n a n a c c o m p lic e co o p e r a tin gw ith th e G o v e r n m e n t, is b e s id e th e p o in t in revi ew i n g a suff

i ci en cy cl ai m su ch as this

— w i t h the excepti on of cases w h ere a wi t n e s s ’t e s t i mo n yi s s o i n c r e d ib l e o ri n s u b s t a n t i a lt h a t , a s a m a t t e ro f l a w, we
m ay di sc r edi ti t. ” Un itedS t ate s v. G ree n w ood , 974 F
. 2d 144 9, 145 8 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ); accord Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez , 74 F
. 3d 575 , 578 (5 th C i r. 199 6)

. Su ch
cases “ t yp i cal l y i n volve t est i m on y abou tan even t t h at coul d n otha ve occurred

‘ u n d er t h e l a w s of na tu re,’” G ree n w ood , 974 F. 2d at1458 ( quot i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v . O s um , 943 F
. 2d 1 394 , 140 5 ( 5th C i r. 199 1) , an d thi s i s not t h at ki n d of case. Th e q ues t i on o f

Juan G ar c i a’ s c r edibi l i t y w as one f ort he j ury. N e xt , Ar r i ag a- G ue r r e r oa r gue s t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntne ve re s t ab l i s he d t he
e xi s t e nc eo f

a n a c t ualagreem en tbetw een A rri aga - G u errer o an d thepe r s o ns w ho cond u ct ed the N ovem ber 30 m arij u an a tr af f i cki n g operati on . Th e evi den ce of t hi s fac tw as n ot insuf f i c i entbe c ause Juan G ar c i a t es t i f i ed t hat A r r i aga- G uer r er o a ske d t o par t i c i pat e i n t he N ove m ber30 ope r at i on, and t hatN o. 05- 41424

17 h e a n dA r r ia g a -G u e r r e r o a g r e e dth a t A r r ia g a -G u e r r e r o w ou l dserv e a s a look ou t. I n a ddit i o n, afe de r ala ge ntt e s t i f i e d t hatAr r i ag a- G ue r r e r o a dm i t t e d t hathe
c ar r i ed o utt he agr ee m en t. W hi l e J uan G ar c i a di d nott es t if y t o r eac hi ng an agreem en tas t o p ay m en t f or t h at day’ s w o rk , a con spi racy convi ct i on does not
r e q u ir e p r o o f o f s u c h d e ta ils , see Uni t e d St at e s v . D e an , 59 F. 3d 1479, 1488–8 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); Agu i rreAgu i rre , 7 1 6 F .2 da t2 9 7 (“ [P ]r o o f o f t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s know l edge of

al lt he det ai l s of

t he dr ug c ons pi r ac y i s notr equi r ed, as l ong as kn ow l edg e of t h e essenti al detai l s i s es t abli shed , an d the defenda n tneed nei t h er h ave bee n p resent at t h e i n cepti on of t h e conspi racy, nor ha ve pl ayed a m aj or
r ol e t her ei n. ”)

. R a ther , t he j ury w as ent i t l ed t o i nfert he e xi st enc e o f an agreem en t f

rom Ju an G arci a’ s t est i m on y an d the ot h er c i rcum st an t i alevi den ce. S ee A m . T

oba cco Co. v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 2 8 U .S

. 7 8 1 , 8 1 0 (1 9 4 6 ); Uni t e d S t at e s v. V ergara , 687 F
. 2d 57, 61 (5th C i r. 198 2) ( “Aconvi ct i on w i l lnot be r eversed f or l ac k o f e vi de nc e t hatade fen dantw as a c qua i nt e d wi t h o rkne w a l lo f t he coconspi rat ors, or l ack of evi den ce t h at h e kn ew each detai l of t h e conspir acy, or b e c a u s e h e b e c a m e am e m b e ro f th e c o n s p ir a c ya fte rit s in c e p tio n , o rp la y e do n ly
a m in o r r o le in th e ov e ra llsc h e m e .” (cita tion s o m itted )). A l on g si m i l ar l i n es, A rri aga - G u errer o argu es t h at t h e governm en tfai l ed t o p r o v e th a tA r r ia g a -G u e r r e r o w a s a c t in ga s a l o o k o u tfo rS a lv a d o rG u e r r e r o ’s
m ar ij uana oper at i on, as oppo se d t o SalvadorG uer r er o’ s c oc ai ne oper at i on or an o pe r at i o n dir e c t e d b y s o m e o ne e l s e . The e vi de nc e o f t hi s fac tw as no ti ns uf f i c i e nt fo rtw o re a s o n s . F ir s t, th e g o v e r n m e n t p r o v id e dd ir e c t e v id e n c e o f th is fa c t in t h e f orm of Ju an G arci a’ s t est i m on y t h at h e saw A rri aga - G u errer o servi n g as a l o o ko utt hatda y, a s w e l la s e vi de nc e o f Ar r i ag a- G ue r r e r o ’ s a dm i s si on of t he
s am e . Se c o nd, t he j ur y c o ul d ha ve i nfe r r e d t hatAr r i ag a- G ue r r e r o w as l o o ki ngN o. 05- 41424

18 o u tfo rS a lv a d o rG a r c ia ’s m a r ij u a n a o p e r a t io n fr o m th e g o v e r n m e n t ’s ci rcum st an t i alevi den ce— n am el y, evi den ce that A rri aga - G u errer o vol u n t eered t o w ork f

or Salvador G arci a’ s operat i on t h at m orni n g, t h at Ju an G arci a ordered h i m to serv e a s a look ou t f or S a lva d or G a rcia’ s m a rij u a n a op era ti on bygo i n g to t hatl o c at i o n, t hatAr r i ag a- G ue r r e r o t he n wentt o t he l o o ko utl o c at i o n a nd st ayed un t i lt h e com pl et i on of t h e operati on , an d that A rri aga - G u errer o as so c i at ed w i t h t he m em ber s of S alvadorG ar c i a’ s ope r at i on t hats am e e veni ng. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. L opez , 979 F
. 2d 102 4, 102 9 ( 5th C i r. 199 2) ( “ C on certof
a ctio n ca n in d ica te a g re e m e n t a n dv o lu n ta ryp a rticip a tion .”)

. Arr i ag a- G ue r r e ro a l s o a r gue s t hatt he g o ve r nm e ntfail e d t o pr o ve t he i nt entel em entof

t he pos sessi on coun t , w hi c h re qui r ed pr oo f t hat Arr i ag a- G ue r r e r o kne w t hatSa lva do rG ar c i a’ s g r o up i nt e nde d t o di s t r ibut e t he
m a r iju a n a a n d in te n d e d to a idth e co n s p ir a c yin th a t r e s p e c t. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v . L o ngo ria , 569 F
. 2d 422 , 425 ( 5th C i r. 197 8) ( “W h e re a defen da n ti s c h arged
w i t h ai di n g an d ab et t i n g a cri m e i n volvi n g an el em en tw h i ch e n h an ces or a g g r a v a te s th e o ffe n s e , th e r e m u s t b e p r o o f th a t t h e d e fe n d a n t a s s o c i a tedh e r s e lf
w i t h an d p art i ci pa t ed i n both el em e n t s of t h e cr i m e. ” )

. Th e evi den ce of t h ese fac t s w as noti ns uf

f i c i e ntbe c aus e j ur i e s a r e e nt i t l e d t o i nfe rade fe nda nt ’ s i nt e nt t o di st ribu t e f

rom evi den ce t h at t h e defen da n tkn ew t h a t t h e t ran sact i on in v o lv e da la r g e a m o u n t o f n a r c o tic s . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Pr i e t o - Te j as , 779 F. 2d 10 98 , 1 10 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 86 ) ( “ [ T] he i nt e nt t o di s t r ibut e m ayb e i nf e r r e d f r o m t he q u a n titya n d q u a li tyof th e co ca in e inth e ir p o ss e ss ion a n dfro m p o ss e ss ion of a scal e of a t yp e com m on l y u sed i n t h e di st ribu t i on of na rcot i cs. ” )

. Th e j u ry hea rd t es t i m ony t hatS alvadorG ar c i a’ s t r af f i c ki ng ope r at i on regul ar l y s ol d ve r y l ar ge qu an t i t i es of

m arij u an a, t h at A rri aga - G u errer o ha d p art i ci pa t ed i n pastN o. 05- 41424

19 operati on s, an d th a tA rri aga - G u errer o w as present du ri n g t h e coor di n ati on of t he N ove m ber30 o per at i on. Fro m t hi s t he j ury c oul d have i nfer r ed t hat Arr i ag a- G ue r r e r o i nt e nde d t o f ur t he rt he c o ns pi r ac y’ s go alo f di s t r ibut i ng t he 75 9 ki l o gr am s o f

m ar ij uanai nvo lve d i n t hatda y’ s o pe r at i o n. 3. J ur y I ns t r uc t i o ns In his t h i rd i ssue, A rr iaga-G u errer o chal l en ges t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s j u ry i ns t r uc t i o n s by a r gui ng t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ts ho ul d ha ve i nc l ude d al i m i t i ng i nstructio n co nce r ni ng t he c oc ai ne e vi denc e c hal l enged by SalvadorG ar c i a. Specif i c al l y, A r r i a ga -G uer r er o a r gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our ts houl d have i n st ructed t h e j u ry as t o t h e l i m i t ed purp oses f or w h i ch the evi den ce of Sa lvad or G ar c i a’ s a c t s o f

c o c ai ne pa c ka gi ng andtraf f i cki ng c o ul d b e us e d, a nd t hatt he court shou l d h ave i n st ru cte d th e j u ry not t o use t h at evi den ce agai n st A r r ia g a -G u e r r e r o . A r r ia g a -G u e r r e r o ra is e dth is is s u e fo rth e fir s t t im e in h is repl y bri ef; t h i s despi t e our earl i er or der di rect i n g coun selt o “f i l e a bri ef ad dr e s s i ng w he t he rt he a dm i s s i o n o f [ c e r t ai n t e s t i m o ny r e ga r di ng c o c ai ne t r anspo r t at i on and pac kagi ng ac t ivi t i e s ] wase r r o ne ous . ” W e o f t en c onc l ude t hat
an app el l an t ’ s fai l u re t o rai se an i ssue i n i t s bri ef on the m eri t s resul t s i n w aiver. E
. g. , S tep h en s v . C

. I. T
. G roup /E qu i p. Fi n . , I

n c. , 955 F
. 2d 102 3, 102 6 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ); seeFe d. R. App. P. 2 8( a) ( 9) (A)

. H o w e ve r , w e som e t i m e s de c i de i n ad equ ately bri efed i ssues su asp o n tein ca s e s o f p la in e r r o r . Uni t e d S t at e s v. G on zalez , 2 5 9 F .3 d3 5 5 , 3 5 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Pi ne da- O r t uno , 952 F .2d 9 8 , 1 0 4

– 0 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ).

In excepti on alcircum st an ces , especi al ly i n cr i m i n alcases , a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s , i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t , may , o f t h e i ro wn m o t i o n, n ot i ce error s t o w h i ch no excepti on h as been t ak en , i f t h e err ors areN o. 05- 41424

20 obvi ous , ori f

t hey o t her w i se s er i ous l y af fec tthe fai r nes s, i nt egr i t y, or pub l i c r epu t ati on of j u di ci alproceedi n gs. Uni t e d St at e s v . At ki ns on , 2 9 7 U .S . 1 5 7 , 1 6 0 (1 9 3 6 ); accord S i l ber v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 7 0 U .S . 7 1 7 , 7 1 7

– 1 8 (1 9 6 2 ) (p e r c u ria m ) (co ll e ctin gca se s); G on zales , 259 F .3 da t 3 5 9 ; Pi ne da- O r t uno , 9 5 2 F .2 da t 1 0 4

– 0 5 ; Uni t e d St a t e s v . Adam s , 634 F
. 2d 830 , 836 ( 5th C i r. U n i tAJan
. 19 8 1 ). W e c h oose t o consi der Arr i aga- G u er r e r o ’ s a r gum e ntt hatt he t r i alc o ur tfail e d t o pr o vi de al i m i t i ng i ns t r uc t i o n a ddr e s s i ng t he c o c ai ne e vi de nc e becau se Sa lva do rG ar c i a andt he go ve r nm e ntb ri e fe d t he i s s ue , a nd b e c aus e t he e r r o ri s l i ke l y t o a r i s e i n a s u b s e q u e n t h a b e a s p r o c e e d in g . S ee G on zales , 2 5 9 F .3 da t 3 5 9 ; Pi ne da- O r t uno , 952 F
. 2d at 105
. N on et h el ess, A rri aga - G u errer o’ s argum en tfai l s. W e again revi ew t h e content of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s j u ry i n st ructi on f or pl ai n err or becau se A rri aga - G u errer o fai l ed to obj ectat t ri alan d requ estei t h er o f t h e in s tr u c tio n s h e n o w s e e k s . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . D e l ga do , 401 F. 3d 290, 2 9 9 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 5 ). A rriag a -G u erre ro’ s c h a l l en ge to t h e instru cti on fa i l s to dem ons t r at e pl ai n er r orf ort he s am e r eas ons t hatSalvadorG ar c i a’ s c hal l enge t o t h e j u ry i n st ructi on fai l s: t h e di st ri ct court di d not com m i tpl ai n err or w h en i tadm i t t ed the cocai n e evi den ce, a nd thej ury c o nvic t i ng Arri aga - G u errer o hea rd th e sa m e instru cti on tha t pre ve n tedrev ersible p reju d i ce w ith r e s p ect to S al vad or G arci a. B y i n st ructi n g t h e j u ry tha t “ [t] h e d efen da n tis n oton tri alf or an y act , condu ct , or of fen se not al l eged i n t h e i n di ct m en t , ” t h e di st ri ctcourt
m i ti ga ted th e prej u d i ce resu l ti n g f rom th e cocain e evide n ce i n th i s ca s e . S ee Pa rz ia le , 9 4 7 F .2 da t 1 2 9 ; seealso Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pet ers on , 244 F. 3d 385, 394 ( 5th C i r. 200 1)

. A rri aga - G u errer o h as fai l ed t o dem on st rat e t h at t h e d i st ri ctN o. 05- 41424

21 c o u r t’s in s tr u c tio n s “s e r io u s lya ffe c t[e d ] th e fa ir n e s s , in te g r ity , o rp u b lic rep u tati on of [t h e] j u d i ci a lpr oce ed i n gs . ” A t ki n son , 297 U
. S. at160. C

. Jo rg e G a rc ia 1. Su f

f i ci en cy In h i s f i rst i ssu e, Jo rg e G a rcia ch a l l en ge s h i s con victi on s on bo th cou n ts by argu i n g t h at t h e governm en tpresented i n suff i ci en tevi den ce of

hi s presence att he A qua V er de pr ope r t y o n t he day of t he s ei zur e. Acc or di ng t o Jor ge G ar c i a, t h e test i m on y of

l aw enfor cem en tof f i ci al s c on f

l i ct ed w i t h t h at of

t h e ot h er
w i t nes s, a co nvi c t ed f el on w ho t es t i f

i ed t o J or ge G ar c i a’ s pre se nce t hatday. Bec aus e J o r ge G ar c i a r ai s e d hi s s uf f i c i e nc y ar gum e nti n am o t i o n f o rj udg m e nt
o f a c quit t al , w e re vi e w t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f t hatm o t i o n de no vo , a pplyi ng th e s a m e s ta n d a r da s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee sup raP a r t I I.B .2 ; Uni t e d S t at e s v. V aldez , 4 5 3 F .3d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T h i s argu m en td oes n otu n derm i n e the C ou n tO n e conspi racy convi ct i on be c aus e t hatc o nvi c t i o n di d no tr e quir e J o r ge G ar c i a’ s pr e s e nc e a tt he Aqua V e r d e p r o p e r tyo n th e d a yo f th e s e iz u r e . S ee V aldez , 453 F. 3d at256–57 (c o n s p ir a c ye le m e n ts ). N o rd idth e C o u n t F iv e p o s s e s s io n c o n v ic tio n . S ee Un i t ed St at e s v . Ram o s - Car de nas , 524 F. 3d 600, 605 ( 5t h C i r . 2008) ( “ Poss es si on m ay be ac t ualorc on str uct ive, m ay be j oi ntam ong s eve r aldef endant s, and m ay be p r o v e n b yd ir e c t o rc ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e .”); Uni t e d St at e s v . Sal i nas - Sal i nas , 555 F. 2d 470, 473 (5th C i r. 1977) ( “ C ons t r uct ive pos se ss i on m ay be s how n by
ow n ershi p, d om i n i on or controlover t h e contr aba n d i t sel f, or dom i n i on or control
o v e r th e p re m ise s o r th e v e h icle in w h ic h th e co n tra b a n dw a s c o n ce a led .”)

. In s te a d , th e ju r yw a s e n tit le dt o r e lyo n t h e t e s tim o n ia l e v id e n c e f r o m m u ltip le
w itn e s s e s th a t J o r g e G a r c ia o w n e dth e A q u a V e r d e p r o p e r ty , t h a t J o r g e G a r c iaN o. 05- 41424

22 had agr ee d t o as si st t he ope r at i on by m aki ng t he pr ope r t y ava i l abl e a s a s t or age l ocat i on , an d that t h e group ha d ag reed t o st ore t h e drug s from t h e N ovem ber 3 0 o p e r a tio n a t J o r g e G a r c ia ’ s p r o p e r ty
. S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. V ergara , 687 F
. 2d 57, 61– 62 (5t h C i r. 1 982 ) (af f i rm i n g a j u ry’ s i n ference of const ructive possessi on fr om ev i d en ce of con trol of t h e p rop ertyan drep ea teden ga ge m en ts w i th
co co n sp ira to rs ). 2. R ul e 1 6 I n hi s s ec ond i ss ue, Jorg e G ar c i a chal l enges h i s c onvi c t i on by ar gui ng t hat t he go ver nm entvi ol a ted F ede r alR ul e o f C r i m i nalPro c edur e 1 6( a) ( 1) ( E ) by i n t rodu ci n g ph ot ograp h s o f t h e A qu a V erde hom e i n t o evi den ce w i t h ou tf i rst d is c lo s in gt h o s e p h o to g r a p h s t o J o r g e G a r c ia . U p o n ad e fe n d a n t’s re q u e s t, R u le 16 r e quir e s t he go ve r nm e nt di s c l o s e t o t he de fe nda ntc e r t ai n i t e m s “ w i t hi n t he g o v e rn m e n t’ s p o ss e ss ion , cu sto d y , o r c o n tro l. ” F e d

. R
. C rim

. P
. 1 6 (a )(1)(E ). A c c o r d in gto J o r g e G a r c ia , th e g o v e r n m e n t’s fa ilu r e to d is c lo s e u n d e r m in e dh is
s t r at e gy o f ar gui ng t hat he di d no t l ive at t he Aqua Ver de ho m e . “ W e revi ew a lle g e dd is c o v e r ye r r o r s fo ra b u s e o f d i s c r e tio n a n dw ill o r d e ran e w tr ia l o n ly
w h ere a d efen d a n t de m on strate s p reju d i ce to h i s su b stan ti a lri gh ts. ” Uni t ed S ta tes v. D o u ce tte , 9 7 9 F .2 d 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 4 4

– 4 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ); accord Un i t ed S t ate s v . Cue l lar , 4 7 8 F .3 d2 8 2 , 2 9 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (e n b a n c ), r e v ’ d on ot h e rg r o unds , 128 S. C t
. 199 4 ( 200 8)

. Jorge G arci a’ s argum en tfai l s f or atl east t w o reasons. Ini t i al l y, Jorge G arci a fai l s t o dem on st rat e t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s d i scr et i on w h en i tref u sed t o pu n i sh the govern m en tf or a fai l u re t o di scl ose. The di s t r i c tc o ur tde t e r m i ne d t hatt he p h ot ogr ap hs i n q ue s t i o n wer e m ad e ava i l able t o t h e pu bl i c, an d that Jorge G arci a’ s i n abil i t y t o acqu i re t h e ph ot os resul t ed f

rom hi s at t orn e y ’ s confusi on abou thow t o ask the cl erk’ s of f i ce f orN o. 05- 41424

23 ac c es s. I n l i ghtof t he r ul e t hat“ t her e c an be no vi ol at i on o f R ul e 1 6
w h ere . . . the de fen d a n t’ s la c k of d i l i ge n ce is t h e so l e ca u se o f h i s fa i l u re to ob tain ev i d en ce m a d e a va i l a b l e b y th e g ov ern m en t, ” D o u ce tte , 979 F. 2d at1045, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d not abu se i t s di scr et i on w h en i tref u sed t o f

i n d a viol ati on of R u l e 1 6 h ere. M oreover, J orge G arci a fai l ed t o dem on st rat e t h at t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t ’ s a d m i s s i o n o f t h e p h o t o g r a p h s p r ej u d i c e d h i s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s . The di st ri ctcourtf

ou n d that t h e ph ot ogra p h s cr e a t ed n o surpri se, an d the ot h er e vi de nc e a tt r i alw as s uf f i c i e ntt o e s t ab l i s h J o r ge G ar c i a’ s p ar t i c i pa t i o n i n t he conspir acy an d h i s p o ss e ss ion of t h e m arij u an a. Th at i s, t h e evi den ce of conspir acy an d p osses si on t h at defeat s Jorge G arci a’ s s u f f i ci en cy argum en tal so d efea ts t h e p reju d i ce co m p on en t of h i s R u l e 1 6 arg u m en t. Jo r ge G ar c i a al s o a r gue s t h att he g o ve r nm e nt ’ s fail ur e t o di s c l o s e t he ph ot ograp h s vi ol ated t h e governm en t ’ s du t y t o di scl ose evi den ce un der B r ady v. Mar y land , 3 7 3 U .S

. 8 3 (19 6 3 ). To m ake o uta B rady vi ol ati on , “a d ef endantm usts how t hat( 1) e v id e n c e w a s s u p p r e s s e d ; (2 ) th e s u p p r e s s e de v id e n c e w a s fa v o r a b le to the de fen se; a n d(3 ) th e s u p p ress ed ev i d en ce w a s m a terialto e i t he rg ui l to rpun i s hm en t
. ” “ Evi de nc e i s m at e r i alund e rBr ad y w hen t her e i s a ‘ r eas onabl e pro babi l i t y’ t hat t he out c om e of t he t r i al w ou l d h ave be e n d i f ferent if

t h e sup pressed evi den ce had been d is c lo s e dto th e d e fe n d a n t.” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Mi l ler , 5 20 F. 3d5 04, 5 14 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) (f o o t no t e o m i t t e d) ( quot i ng Uni t e d St at e s v . Runya n , 2 9 0 F .3 d2 2 3 , 2 4 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) )

. T h is
a r g u m e n t fa i l s f

o r m u l t i p l e r e a s o n s , t h e s i m p l e s t o f wh i c h i s t h a tt he ph ot ograp h s Jorge G arci a cha l l en ges do n ott ri gger Bra dy protec t i on s because th e ya r e in c u lp a to r y , n o t e x c u lp a to r y . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. Joh n son , 872 F. 2d 6 1 2 , 6 1 9 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 9 ).N o. 05- 41424

24 3. Se nt e nc i ng F i n al l y, Jorge G arci a cha l l en ges h i s sen t en ce bya rguing t h at t h e di st ri ct
cou rt ad d ed tw o leve l s to the origi n a loff en se leve lw h en i t actu a l l y in ten d ed to subt r ac ttw o l ev el s t o a c c ountf orJo r ge G ar c i a’ s r ol e i n t he o f fens es . Jo r ge G a r c ia d o e s n o t c h a lle n g e th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s c a lc u la tio n o f th e b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l,
an d does n otch al l en ge t h e su bstance of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s s en t en ci n g deci si on s. Inst ead , Jorge G arci a argu es onl y t h at t h e distr ict court “ i n ad vert en t l y ad ded t wo p o i n t s t o t h e o f

fe n s e l e v e la f

t e rs t a t i n gi t s i nt e n t i o n t o s u b t r a c to u tt wo l evel s f or [Jorge G arci a’ s] rol e. ” B ecau se Jorge G arci a obj ect ed t o the om i ssi on of a rol e reducti on i n t h e di st ri ctcourt , w e revi ew t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s app l i cat i on of the U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g G u i del i n es de no vo an d i t s fact u alf i n di n gs f

or c le a re r r o r . See, e . g. , Uni t e d St at e s v . Bar r e r a- Sauc e do , 38 5 F
. 3 d53 3 , 53 5 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); Un itedS ta tes v. G a rc ia , 2 4 2 F .3d 5 9 3 , 5 9 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). Jo r ge G ar c i a’ s a r gum e ntfai l s b e c aus e t he di s t r i c tc o ur tm ad e no in a d v e r te n t c a lc u la tio n . A fte rca lc u la tin gab a s e o ffe n s e le v e l o f th ir ty -fo u r , see U ni t ed St at es Sent enc i ng G ui del i nes M anual§ 2D 1. 1( a) ( 3) ( 2004) , t h e di st ri ct
c o ur te nhan c e d the b as e o f fe ns e b y t w o l e ve l s f o rpo s s e s s i o n o f

a da nge r o us
w e a p o n , see i d. § 2D 1. 1(b) ( 1)

. A l t h ou gh t h e presentence i n v e stig a ti on report
r ec om m ended a no the rt wo l e v e le nh a nc e m e ntf o ro r g a ni z i ng, l eadi ng, m anagi ng, o rs u p e r v is in gth e a c tiv ity , see i d. § 3 B 1
. 1(c ) , t he di st r i c tc our tr ej ec t ed t hat
recom m en da t i on . Th e di st ri ctcourt a lso rej ect ed Jorge G arci a’ s r equ estf or a
m i no rpa r t i c i pa ntr e duc t i o n, se e i d. § 3 B 1 .2(b ), a n dc o n c lu d e dth a tJ o r g e G a r c ia ’s i nvolvem entw as “pe r vas ive and ove ra l ong pe r i od o f t i m e. ” Contr ar y t o J or ge G arci a’ s sug gest i on , w h en t h e di st ri ct court sai d t h at “ [ a] f t er m ak i n g t h e tw opoi ntadj ust m ent , he’ s ata Leve l36 w hen I subt r ac tout hi s r ol e, ” t he c our tw asN o. 05- 41424

JorgeGarcia do es not challenge the substance of the district court’s rej ection of the 6 § 3 B1 .2 reductionargument. 25 ref erri n g t o i t s r ej ect i on of t h e § 3B 1. 1( c) rol e en h an cem en t , n ot an accept an ce of t h e § 3B 1. 2(b) reducti on . Th e di st ri ctcourtm ad e i t s c on cl u si on cl ear: The Cour ta do pt s t he fac t u alf i ndi ngs c o nt ai ne d wi t hi n t he Pres ent enc e Repor t
. H ow eve r , t he C our tc onc l udes t hat[Jor ge G ar c i a] s houl d nothave bee n as se ss ed w i t h an enhanced r ol e, t hat he w as j us tare gul arpar t i c i pa nt
. Af t e rm ak i ng t hi s m o di f i c at i o n, t hi s w oul d r es ul ti n an of fens e l eve lof

36, w hi c h i s a gui del i ne r ange of 188 t o 235 m on t h s. Thus , a s am at t e r o f fac t , t he r e c o r d d e fe at s J o r ge G ar c i a’ s c o nt e nt i o n t hatt he di st ri ctc o u rt i n t en ded t o reduce the sentence t o som et h i n g l ess t h an l evel t hi r t y- six. 6 I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , th e d is tr ic t co u r t ju d g m e n ts a r e A F F IR M E D in al lres pects
.