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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 44 85

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

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

ff - App el le e

v.

Man ue l Es pi no za

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 44 86

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

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

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo se Lui s Ti zo c, al so kn own as J oh n Do e

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

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa - Co un ci l Bl uf fs

__ __ __ __ __ __Su bm it te d: Octo be r 19 , 20 17 Fil ed : M arch 13 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re LOKEN, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
LOKEN, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Afte r a si x- da y tri al
, a jury co nv ic te d Man ue l Esp in oz a an d Jo se Lui s Tizo c of

co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, se e 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1, 84 6, an d Esp in oz a of be in g a pr oh ib it ed pe rs on in po ss es si on of a fir earm , se e 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (2 )- (3 ), 9 2 4 (a)( 2)

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Esp in oz a to 24 0 m on th s in pr is on an d 1
Tizo c to 30 0 m on th s. Each ti m el y ap pe al ed
, ch al le ng in g hi s co nv ic ti on an d se nt en ce. W e co ns ol id at ed th e ap pe al s an d n ow af fir m

.

I. Suf fic ie ncy of t he Ev id ence (Es pi no za )

Esp in oz a arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of

acq ui tt al be cau se th e tri al ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to co nv ic t hi m of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m

ph et am in e an d be in g a pr oh ib it ed pe rs on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Ru le 29 (a) of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e pr ov id es th at th e co ur t “ m us t

en te r a jud gm en t of acq ui tt al of an y of fen se fo r whi ch th e ev id en ce is in su ffi ci en t to

su st ai n a co nv ic ti on .” Thi s st an da rd ap pl ie s whe th er a ti m el y m ot io n is m ad e be fo re

or aft er th e jury ve rd ic t. See Ru le 29 (c). In rev ie win g th e de ni al of a Ru le 29 m ot io n,

“ [w]e ap pl y th e sa m e st an da rd of rev ie w to th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng

. . . as we do to

a su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce chal le ng e.” Uni te d Stat es v. Co ok
, 60 3 F.3d 43 4, 43 7 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 10 ). The ve rd ic t m us t be up he ld “ if th ere is an y in te rp ret at io n of t h e

The Hon or ab le Ja m es E. Grit zn er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 So ut he rn Dis tri ct of I owa

.
-2

-ev id en ce th at co ul d le ad a reas on ab le -m in de d jury to fin d th e de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d

a reas on ab le do ub t

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Tay lo r, 81 3 F.3 d 11 39
, 11 46 (8 th Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) , cert . den ie d, 1 36 S. Ct. 2 42 4 (2 01 6)

.

A. The Co ns pi racy Ch arg e. At tri al
, FBI Sp eci al Age nt an d cas e ag en t Mi ch el e Neil y t es ti fie d th at , in 20 14 an d 20 15
, st at e an d fed eral ta sk fo rces in ve st ig at in g

m et ha m ph et am in e di st rib ut io n in O mah a, Neb ras ka an d Co un ci l Bl uf fs
, Io wa i d e n ti fie d Ri ch ard Hul l, Jr

. as a ke y di st rib ut or

. Usi ng wire ta ps , ph y si ca l

su rv ei ll an ce, so ur ce in fo rm at io n, an d co nt ro ll ed pu rch as es , i nv es ti ga to rs i d e n t ifi ed Esp in oz a an d Tizo c as two of Hul l’s su pp l i e r s

. On Sep te m be r 23
, 20 15
, warra nt

se arch es at Tizo c’s an d Hul l’s res id en ce an d at a ga rag e on Z St reet in Om ah a y ie ld ed
dis tr ibu tion qu an ti ti es of m et ha m ph et am in e, fir earm s, am m un it io n, fin an ci al reco rd s,

an d ot he r ev id en ce of dr ug tra ffi ck in g su ch as a di gi ta l sc al e, pa ck ag in g m at eri al s,

an d ra zo r bl ad es

.

Ri ch ard Hul l pl ead ed gu il ty to dr ug co ns pi racy an d fir earm ch arg es an d

te st ifi ed fo r th e go ve rn m en t at tria l. In 20 14
, Hul l beg an bu y in g m et ha m ph et am in e fro m Es pi no za an d hi s gi rlf rie nd
, Cl au di a; th ey de li ve red two -p ou nd qu an ti ti es to
H u ll ’s res id en ce. Afte r Cl au di a m ov ed to Mex ic o in 20 15
, Hul l pu rch as ed fro m Esp in oz a di rect l y, acq ui rin g a po un d of m et ha m ph et am in e th at su m

m er. Sp eci al Age nt Neil y te st ifi ed th at th ree wire ta pp ed co nv ers at io ns be twee n Hul l an d Esp in oz a

co nc ern ed Hul l’s m et ha m ph et am in e req ui rem en ts an d h is ab il it y to pa y

.

Je ss ic a Mo ren o, Hul l’s li ve -in gi rlf rie nd
, al so pl ead ed gu i l t y t o a dr ug

co ns pi racy ch arg e an d co rro bo rat ed Hul l’s te st im on y

. Mo ren o te st ifi e d t ha t, in a wire ta pp ed cal l wit h a pe rs on sh e id en ti fie d as Esp in oz a, sh e as ke d hi m to su pp ly
Hul l a ha lf- po un d of m et ha m pheta m ine

. In an other co nv ers at io n, Esp in oz a in st ru ct ed
Mo ren o to ha ve Hul l m ee t h i m a t a c on ve ni en ce st or e an d pa y wha t he owe d Esp in oz a fo r m et ha m

ph et a mine

. Mo ren o acco m pa ni ed Hul l to th is m eet in g, an d ph y si cal su rv ei ll an ce y ie ld ed a ph ot o o f Es p i n o za en te rin g hi s car. Bran di Lop ez,

-3

-who pl ead ed gu il ty to dr ug co ns pi racy an d fir earm ch arg es , te st ifi ed th at Esp in o za

su pp li ed he r a po un d of m et ha m ph et am in e e v e ry two to th ree da y s an d on ce
req ue st ed th at sh e co ll ect m on ey Hul l owe d Esp in oz a fo r m et ha m ph et am in e. Lop ez

so ld to ov er 2 50 cu st om ers fro m th e en d o f 20 14 un ti l h er ar res t i n Au gu st 20 15

.

To pr o v e a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, th e go ve rn m en t m us t
pr ov e an ag reem en t t o di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e th at th e de fen da nt kn ew of an d
in te nt io na ll y joi ne d. See Tay lo r, 81 3 F .3d at 1 14 6- 47 . “ Evi de nc e of m ul ti pl e sa le s of res al e q ua nt it ie s o f dr ug s i s s uf fic ie nt in an d o f it se lf t o m ak e a s ub m is si bl e cas e of a co ns pi racy t o di st rib ut e.” Uni te d St at es v. Mo rri s, 7 91 F.3d 91 0, 9 13 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (q uo ta ti on o mi t t e d )

. Esp in oz a arg ue s Hul l, Mo ren o, an d Lop ez’s te st im on y

was “ ta in te d” by th ei r de si re to red uc e th ei r se nt en ces an d th us in su ffi ci en t to su pp or t

a co nv ic ti on

. Bu t “ [w]e ha ve rep eat ed ly u p h e l d jury ve rd ic ts ba se d so le ly on th e
te st i mo n y o f c o- co ns pi rat or s an d co op erat in g wit ne ss es , n ot in g th at it is wit hi n th e
pr ov in ce of th e jury to m ak e cred ib il it y as se ss m en ts an d r e so lv e co nf li ct in g
te st im on y .” Uni te d St at es v. Harri s- Tho m ps on , 75 1 F.3 d 59 0, 60 0 (8 th Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed
, 13 5 S. Ct

. 41 5 (2 01 4)

. Esp in oz a a r g ue s th e
go ve rn m en t’s la ck of di rect ev id en ce, su ch as co nt ro ll ed p ur ch as es fro m hi m or a wire ta p on hi s ph on e, m ak es th e ev id en ce of hi s pa rti ci pa ti on in su ffi ci en t. Bu t th e
go ve rn m en t m ay pr ov e a co ns pi racy t o di st rib ut e a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e th ro ug h
ci rcu m st an ti al ev id en ce. See, e.g ., Uni te d St at es v. Ja ck so n, 20 4 F.3 d 81 2, 81 4 (8 th
Ci r. 2 0 0 0 ). Here, a jury co ul d reas on ab ly in fer fro m th e co op erat in g co ns pi rat or s’

te st im on y , th e wire ta pp ed ph on e cal ls
, an d th e ph y si cal su rv ei ll an ce t h a t Es p i no za

was gu il ty of co ns pi rin g t o d is tri bu te m et ha m ph et am in e.

B. The Fi rear m Ch arg e. On Aug us t 24
, 20 15
, whi le on tra ffi c pa tro l, Co un ci l
Bl uf fs Po li ce Office r Ty Bo ld ra sto pp ed a bl ack Mer ced es tra ve li ng wit ho ut a fro nt li cen se pl at e. A s e a rch of th e dr iv er, Man ue l Esp in oz a, un co ve red a pi pe an d 0.8

gr am s of m et ha m

ph et am in e in Esp in oz a’s po ck et s, an d Offi cer Bo ld ra arre st ed Esp in oz a fo r po ss es si on of dr ug p a r a p h e rn al ia

. An in ve nt or y se arch of Esp in oz a’s

-4

-car th en di sc ov ered a fir earm be twee n th e dr iv er’s se at an d cen te r co ns ol e. Co un t 10

of th e in di ct m en t ch arg e d Esp in oz a wit h vi ol at in g 18 U.S.C. §§ 92 2( g) (2 ) an d (3 ),
whi ch pr ov id e: “ It sh al l be un la wfu l fo r an y pe rs on

. . . who is a fu gi ti ve fro m jus ti ce [o r]

. . . who is an un la wfu l us er of or ad di ct ed to an y co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e

. . . to

. . . po ss es s i n o r affe ct in g c om m erce , any firea rm or a m m un it io n.”

The jury fo un d Esp in oz a gu il ty of th at ch arg e. Esp in oz a a r gu es th e di st ric t

co ur t erre d in de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al be cau se th e go ve rn m en t’s

ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to sh ow he was a fu gi ti ve fro m jus ti ce or an un la wfu l dr ug

us er whe n he po ss es se d t he fir earm . If th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h on e of th es e al te rn at iv e el em en ts , we ne ed no t co ns id er th e ot he r. “ [W] he n a jury ret ur ns

a gu il ty ve rd ic t on an in di ct m en t ch arg in g se ve ral act s in th e co nju nc ti ve

. . . th e

ve r d i c t s t an ds if th e ev id en ce is su ffi ci en t wit h res pe ct to an y on e of th e act s ch arg ed .” Grif

fin v. Uni te d St at es , 50 2 U.S. 46
, 5 6

- 5 7 (1 99 1)
, qu ot in g Turn er v. Uni te d S ta te s, 3 96 U.S. 39 8, 4 20 (19 70 ).

W e co nc lu de th e ev id en ce was su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h th at Esp in oz a was an

un la wfu l d ru g u se r in po ss es si on of a fir earm whe n Office r Bo ld ra fou nd a fi rear m , gl as s pi pe , an d ap pr ox im at el y 0.8 gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e in Esp in o z a’s

po ss es si on du rin g th e Aug us t 24
, 20 15 tra ffi c st op

. The go ve rn m en t ne ed no t pr ov e

“ co nt em po ran eo us us e of a co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc e an d po ss es si on of a fir earm .” Uni te d
St at es v. Jo hn so n, 57 2 F.3 d 44 9, 45 3 (8 th Ci r.) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed
, 55 8
U.S. 10 18 (2 00 9)

. Tha t Esp in oz a w a s f o un d in po ss es si on of a fir earm an d a us er
qu an ti ty o f m et ha m

ph et am in e pe rm it te d a rat io na l jury to in f e r h e w a s an un la wfu l

m et ha m ph et am in e us er at th at ti m e. See Uni te d St at es v. Mac k, 34 3 F.3 d 92 9, 93 4- 35 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ), cert

. de ni ed
, 54 0 U.S. 12 26 (2 00 4)

. Mo reo ve r, Bran di Lop ez te st ifi ed
th at sh e us ed m et ha m

ph et am in e wit h Esp in oz a in Aug us t 20 15 ; Hul l an d Mo ren o
te st ifi ed th ey

wou ld oc cas io na ll y

sm ok e m et ha m

ph et am in e wit h Es pi no za.

-5

-Alt ern at iv el y , Esp in oz a arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in

de nyin g hi s m ot io n fo r a n e w t r i a l u nd er Ru le 33 of th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al
Pro ced ur e. He as se rts th at “ [a] m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce h a s oc cu rred wit h th e jury’ s

ve rd ic t,” pr es um ab ly be cau se th e ve rd ic t was ag ai ns t th e weig ht o f t he ev id en ce.

“ Mo ti on s fo r ne w tri al s ba se d on th e weig ht of th e ev id en ce ge ne ral ly are di sf av or ed
,
an d th e di st ric t co ur t’s au th or it y to gr an t a ne w tri al sh ou ld be ex erci se d sp ari ng ly an d
wit h cau ti on .” Uni te d St at es v. Vor e, 74 3 F.3 d 11 75
, 11 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. As ou r br ie f su m m ary of th e tri al ev id en ce refl ect s, th e ve rd ic t was no t
ag ai ns t th e weig ht of th is ev id en ce. The re f o r e , t h e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g Es pi no za a n ew tr ia l.

II . The Su ppre ss io n Is su e (Es pi no za )

E spino za m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce se iz ed du rin g th e Aug us t 24
, 20 15 tra ff ic

st op , arg ui ng (i) Offi cer Bo ld ra la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se fo r th e in it ia l st op ; (ii ) as ki ng Esp in oz a to ex it th e ve hi cl e an d co nd uc t i n g a pa t-d own se arch un co ns ti tu ti on al ly

ex te nd ed th e tra ffi c st op ; an d (ii i) Esp in oz a di d no t v o l u n t a r i l y co ns en t to th e pa tdo wn se ar ch

. Afte r an ev id en ti ary he ari ng at whi ch Offi cer Bo ld ra te st ifi ed
, bu t Esp in oz a di d no t, th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, fin di ng (i) th ere was pr ob ab le

cau se to m ak e a tra ffi c st op whe n Bol dr a fo ll owe d Esp in oz a’s car bec au se it la ck ed

a fro nt li cen se pl at e an d th en ob se rv ed it s rig ht rear br ak e li gh t was no t op erat in g, as Io wa Co de § 32 1.3 87 req ui res ; (ii ) it was reas on ab le to as k Esp in oz a t o s i t in th e
po li ce cru is er whe n he di d no t ha ve a va li d dr iv er’s li cen se ; an d (ii i) Esp in oz a

vo lu nt ari ly co ns en te d to a se arch th at rev eal ed a pi pe an d, aft er hi s arre st fo r
po ss es si on of d ru g p arap he rn al ia , 0.8 gra m s o f m et ha m ph et am in e. “ In co ns id eri ng th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. Eva ns , 83 0 F.3 d 76 1,
76 5 (8 th Cir . 20 16 ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d) , cert . den ie d, 1 37 S. Ct. 8 39 (20 17 ).

-6

-(i) On ap pe al
, Esp in oz a fir st arg ue s th at Offi cer Bo ld ra la ck ed pr ob ab le cau se

to st op hi s ve hi cl e. Thi s co nt en ti on is wit ho ut m eri t. An of fic er “ w ho ob se rv es a
tra ffi c vi ol at io n ha s pr ob ab le cau se to st op th e ve hi cl e an d it s dr iv er.” Uni te d St at es

v. Oli ve ra-M en de z, 48 4 F

. 3 d 5 0 5
, 50 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Bo ld ra ob se rv ed th at Esp in oz a’s rear br ak e li gh t was no t fu nc ti on in g, a vi ol at io n of Io wa la w. Bo ld ra ha d

pr ob ab le cau se to st op Esp in oz a’s ve hi cl e.

(ii ) Esp in oz a arg ue s th at Offi cer Bo ld ra un co ns ti tu ti on al ly ex te nd ed th e tra ffi c
st op whe n he req ue st ed th at Esp in oz a acco m pa ny hi m to hi s cru is er, whi c h w a s an

un reas on ab le tac ti c de si gn ed to de lv e in to su bjec ts no t re la te d t o t he pu rp os e o f th e
st op

. “ Onc e th e of

fic er m ak es t h e t r a f

f i c st op , th e of

fic er m ay la wfu ll y ch eck th e dr iv er’s li cen se an d reg is tra ti on , as k th e dr iv er ab ou t hi s de st in at io n an d pu rp os e, an d

req ue st th at th e dr iv er si t in si de th e pa tro l car.” Uni te d St at es v. Bro wn, 34 5 F.3 d
57 4, 57 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 )

. H ere, whe n Esp in oz a rev eal ed th at he la ck ed a va li d
dr iv er’s li cen se , th e req ue st th at he m ov e to Bo ld ra’s cru is er was di rect ly rel at ed to
pr op er co m

pl et io n of th e tra ffi c st op be cau se , wit ho ut a li cen se , Esp in oz a co ul d no t be pe rm it te d to dr iv e hi s ve hi cl e aft er th e st op

. Offi cer Bo l dr a te st ifi ed th at he typic al ly arre st s th e dr iv er an d imp o u n d s t he ve hi cl e whe n a st op rev eal s dr iv er’s
li cen se an d e qu ip m en t v io la ti on s.

(ii i) Fi na ll y , Esp in oz a arg ue s Offi cer Bo ld ra’s pa t-d own se arch was un la wfu l
be cau se Esp in oz a di d n o t vo lu nt ari ly co ns en t to th e se arch

. “ A se arch co nd uc te d

pu rs ua nt to a va li d co ns en t is co ns ti tu ti on al ly pe rm is si bl e.” Uni te d St at es v. Mar ti n, 98 2 F.2 d 12 36
, 12 38 -3 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 ). The te st fo r a va li d co ns en t to se arch “ is th at th e c on se nt be vo lu nt ary, an d vo lu nt ari ne ss is a qu es ti on of fact to be de te rm in ed
fro m al l t h e c irc um st an ces .” Ohi o v. Ro bi ne tt e, 51 9 U.S. 33
, 40 (1 99 6) (q uo ta ti on

om it te d)

. The i s s u e t u r n s no t on th e de fen da nt ’s su bjec ti ve st at e of m in d, bu t on whe th er th e of

fic er reas on ab ly be li ev ed th e de fen da nt co ns en te d. See Uni te d St at es

v. Co nt rera s, 37 2 F.3 d 97 4, 97 7 (8 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 4 ) , c ert . d en ie d, 54 6 U.S. 9 02 (2 00 5)

. Thu s, th e go ve rn m en t “ on ly ne e d e d t o p r ov e th at it was reas on ab le [fo r Offi cer

-7

-Bo ld ra] to be li ev e th at [Esp in oz a’s] co ns en t was no t th e res ul t of ‘dur es s or co erci on ,

ex pr es s or im

pl ie d.’” Uni te d St at es v. Ced an o- Med in a, 36 6 F.3 d 68 2, 68 8 (8 th Ci r.) (ci ta ti on om it te d) , cert . den ie d, 5 43 U.S. 10 35 (20 04 ).

Offi cer Bo ld ra te st ifi ed th at , aft er in st ru ct in g Esp in oz a to pu ll ov er, he

ex pl ai ne d th at Esp i n o z a ha d co m m it te d tra ffi c vi ol at io ns an d req ue st ed hi s
reg is tra ti on , in su ran ce, an d dr iv er’s li cen se

. W he n Esp in oz a ha d no va li d dr iv er’s
li cen se , Bo ld ra as ke d hi m to acco m pa ny Bo ld ra to th e po li ce cru is er, in te nd in g to writ e tr affi c ti ck et s. Esp in oz a ag reed . B efo re Es pi no za en te red th e cru is er, Bo ld ra

as ke d if Esp in oz a ha d an y fir earm s or kn iv es

. Esp in oz a sa id no

. Bo ld ra th en “ as ke d
hi m if he wou ld m in d if I pa tt ed hi m do wn.” In res po ns e, Esp in oz a l ift ed hi s arm s
pa ral le l to th e gr ou nd

. Bo ld ra ask ed if Esp in oz a wou ld pu t hi s ha nd on th e ve hi cl e. In res po ns e, Esp in oz a “ tu rn s aro un d an d pu ts hi s ha nd s on th e tru nk of hi s car.” The ir

co nv ers at io n was in Eng li sh
, th ou gh Esp in oz a’s Eng li sh was “ br ok en ” an d Bo ld ra

us ed ha nd ge st ur es in co m m un ic at in g h is req ue st s.

Dur in g th e pa t-d own se arch
, Bo l d r a f e l t a bu lg e in Esp in oz a’s po ck et th at
Bo ld ra b el ie ve d t o be a gl as s pi pe us ed fo r sm ok in g d ru gs . Esp in oz a id en ti fie d t he
ob ject as a pi pe , rem ov ed it fro m hi s own po ck et , an d pl aced it on hi s ve hi cl e’s tru nk

. Bo ld ra arre st ed Esp in oz a fo r po ss es si ng dr ug pa rap he rn al ia
, read hi m Mi ran da rig ht s in Eng li sh
, res um ed th e se arch
, an d di sc ov ered 0.8 gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e in

an ot he r po ck et

. Bo ld ra req ue st ed po li ce b a ck up , c on du ct ed an in ve nt or y se arch of Esp in oz a’s car, an d d is co ve red th e fi rear m

.

Offi cer Bo ld ra te st ifi ed t h a t he ro ut in el y as ks fo r co ns en t to co nd uc t a pa tdo wn se ar c h b e fo re a pe rs on en te rs hi s po li ce car to pr ot ect of fic er sa fet y , a no t

un reas on ab le pr act ic e. In ad di ti on to sayin g “ no ,” it is eas y fo r a pe rs on to res po nd
wit h ne ga ti ve be ha vi or to a req ue st fo r co ns en t to a pa t-d own se arch
, fo r ex am pl e, by
fo ld in g on e’s arm s to pr ev en t th e se arch

. By co nt ras t, Esp in oz a’s res po ns e -- rai si ng hi s arm s pa ral le l to th e gr ou nd -- ga ve Offi cer Bo ld r a a r e a s o n a bl e ba si s to be li ev e

-8

-Esp in oz a was co ns en ti ng to th e se arch
, co ns is te nt wit h hi s co op erat iv e res po ns e an d

de m ean or du rin g th e tra ffi c st op an d rei nf or ced by hi s wil li ng ne ss to pl ace hi s ha nd

on hi s ve hi cl e’s tru nk
, m ak in g acce ss eas ie r, an d th en ret rie vi ng th e pi pe f r o m hi s
po ck et when Bo ld ra as ke d wh at it was.

Esp in oz a arg ue s th at , ev en if he con se nt ed to th e se arch
, hi s li m it ed ab il it y to
sp eak an d un de rs ta nd Eng li sh ren de red hi s co ns en t in vo lu nt ary. The di st ric t co ur t fo un d th ere was no t “ an y si g n i f ic an t la ng ua ge ba rri er pr ev en t[i ng Esp in oz a] fro m

vo lu nt ari ly co ns en ti ng to th e pa t-d own se arch .” Esp in oz a in it ia te d a co nv ers at io n in Eng li sh be fo re th e st op , a ns wered qu es ti on s in Eng li sh , and res po nd ed pro m pt ly t o Bo ld ra’s co m

m an ds an d req ue st s in Eng li sh th ro ug ho ut th ei r en co un te r. Bas ed on th e
t o t a l i t y of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t cl earl y err i n fin di ng th at Esp in o z a v o lu nt ari ly co ns en te d to th e pa t-d own se arch

. Co m pa re Co nt rera s, 37 2 F.3 d at 97 7- 78 ; Ced an o- Med in a, 36 6 F.3 d at 6 8 7 ; Uni te d St at es v. Men do za-C ep ed a, 25 0 F .3d 62 6, 6 27 , 62 9 (8 th Cir . 20 01 ).

II I. I neff ecti ve Ass is ta nce o f Cou ns el (Ti zo c)

Tizo c arg ue s hi s tri al co un se l’s fai lu re to ob ject to in ad m is si bl e an d un fai rly

pr ejud ic ia l ev id en ce an d cl os in g arg um en t li nk in g Tizo c to th e no to rio us dr ug cart el
in hi s ho m e st at e in Mex ic o, Si na lo a, an d cro ss ex am in at io n th at “ pe rm it t[e d] th e jury

to he ar [ru m or s] t ha t Tiz oc ’s m ot he r ha d st art ed to ru n th e sa m e m et ha m ph et am in e di s t r ib ut io n op erat io ns aft er he r so n’s arre st ,” co ns ti tu te d in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of

co un se l in vi ol at io n of th e Si xt h A men d men t. See St ric kl an d v. W as hi ng to n, 46 6
U.S. 66 8 (1 98 4) . Becau se in effe ct iv e as si st an ce cl ai m s are us ua ll y be st li ti ga te d i n

co ll at eral pr oc eed in gs , we co ns id er a cl ai m on di rect ap pe al on ly “ whe re the reco rd
ha s be en f

u l ly de ve lo pe d, whe re no t to act wou ld am ou nt to a pl ai n m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce, or whe re co un se l’s erro r is r e a di ly ap pa ren t.” Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 69 0 F.3 d 97 7, 99 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) ( qu ot at io n om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed
, 56 8 U.S. 12 40 (2 01 3)

. “ The in effe ct iv e as si st an ce st an da rd is hi gh ly d e f eren ti al to an at to rn ey ’s

-9

-jud gm en t, pa rt i cu la rly on is su es su ch as whe th er to ob ject to th e in tro du ct io n of

ev id en ce at tri al .” Un i t e d St at es v. Cal ho un , 72 1 F.3 d 59 6, 60 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ). Here, we ha ve no sh owi ng of why Tizo c’s tri al co un se l di d no t m ak e th e ob jecti on s in qu es ti on . Acc or di ng ly, we wil l fo ll ow ou r no rm al pr act ic e an d no t co ns id er t hi s cl ai m on di rect ap pe al See i d.

IV. Sen tenc in g I ss ues

A. Esp in oz a. Esp in oz a arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t co m m i t t e d c l e ar erro r by
im po si ng a th ree- le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r hi s “ man a g e r or su pe rv is or ” ro le in th e

co ns pi racy of

fen se

. S e e U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (b ). The co nt en ti on is wit ho ut m eri t. Esp in oz a’s Pres en te nc e In ve st ig at io n Rep or t (PSR ) reco m m en de d th e en ha nc em en t,

res ul ti ng in a to ta l reco m

m en de d of

fen se le ve l of 43

. At se nt en ci ng , th e di st ric t co ur t
ag reed wit h Esp in oz a’s ob jecti on , de cl in e d t o im

po se a ro le en ha nc em en t, an d
ad jus te d t he to ta l o ffen se lev el to 40

.

B. Tizo c. Tizo c’s ad vi so ry se nt en ci ng gu id el in es ran ge was li fe im pr is on m en t ba se d on a m ax im

um to ta l of

fen se le ve l of 43 an d hi s Cat eg or y I cri m in al hi st or y

. 2
The di st ric t co ur t va rie d do wnwar d an d se nt en ced hi m to 30 0 m on th s in pr is on

. On

ap pe al
, Tizo c arg ue s t h e c ou rt erre d in ap pl y in g two se nt en ci ng en ha nc em en ts , fin di ng s we revi ew fo r cl ear erro r. See Un it ed Sta te s v . Riv era- Men do za, 6 82 F.3d
73 0, 73 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ); Mo rri s, 79 1 F.3 d a t 9 1 4

. He al so arg ue s th e co ur t

co m m it te d two pr oc ed ur al erro rs an d im po se d a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le se nt en ce.

In fact , t he PSR cal cu la te d an of fen se le ve l o f fo rty-eig ht , wh ic h th e di st ric t 2

co ur t effe ct iv el y ad op te d in reject in g al l of Tizo c’s se nt en ci ng -en ha nc em en t ob jecti on s. Bu t, un de r U.S.S.G. Ch

. 5, Pt. A, co m m en t. (n.2 ), “ [a]n of

fen se le ve l of

m or e th an 43 is to be tre at ed as a n o ffen se lev el of 4 3.”

-1 0-1. The Im po rta ti on Enh an cem en t. The gu id el in es im po se a t w o

- le ve l

en ha nc em en t “ [i]f

. . . th e of fen se in vo lv ed th e im

po rta ti on of

. . . m et ha m

ph et am in e”

an d th e de fen da nt is no t su bjec t to a m it ig at in g ro le ad jus tm en t. U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1(b )(5 ). Tizo c arg ue s th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h by a
pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e co ns pi racy i n v ol ve d im po rte d

m et ha m ph et am in e. Lik e th e d is tri ct co ur t, we d is ag ree.

At tri al
, Dian e Cerv an te s, Tizo c’s se lf- de s c r i b e d “ se co nd m ot he r,” te st ifi ed

t ha t Tizo c ex pl ai ne d he la un de red cas h fro m hi s dr ug di st rib ut io n op era t i o n s b y bu y in g cars us in g dr

ug pr oc eed s, rep ai rin g th em in Om ah a, an d ex ch an gi ng th em fo r dr ug s in Mex ic o. Sh e te st ifi ed th at Tizo c wou ld so m et im es tra ns po rt dr ug m on ey to
Mex ic o an d rece iv e sh ip m en ts of Me x i can -o rig in at ed dr ug s. Tizo c arg ue s ot he r

ev id en ce co nf

li ct s wit h Cerv an te s’s te st im on y -- Jo el Ro dr ig ue z Gom ez, who wor ke d

at th e Z St reet ga rag e, te st ifi ed th at an SUV de li ve red m et ha m ph et am in e sh ip m en ts
to th e ga rag e an d, on on e oc cas io n, he s a w Ti z oc pr ov id e th e dr iv er a su it cas e

co nt ai ni ng cas h. If he were pa y in g wit h rep ai red cars in Mex ic o, as Cerv an te s
te st ifi ed
, Tizo c arg ue s, he wou ld no t ha ve h a d t o p a y fo r th e sh ip m en ts

. The

te st im on y was no t cl earl y in co ns is te nt , an d if it were, “ th e di st ric t co ur t’s cred ib il it y fin di ng s are vi rtu al ly un as sa il ab le on ap pe al .” Uni te d St at es v. W il li s, 43 3 F.3 d 63 4,
63 6 (8 th Ci r.), cert . d e n i e d
, 54 9 U.S. 8 60 (2 00 6)

. In ad di ti on , S pe ci al Age nt Neil y
te st ifi ed th at m os t m et ha m phe ta m ine in the U nit ed St at es or ig in at es fro m Mex ic o, an d
th ere was evi de nc e th at Tizo c an d hi s su bo rd in at es rot at ed tak in g t rip s t he re. As i n Ri ve ra-M en do za, 68 2 F.3 d at 73 3- 34
, th e ev id en ce su pp or te d th e di st ric t co ur t’s
fin di ng by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at th e co ns pi racy in vo lv ed th e kn owi ng im por ta tio n of m et ha m

ph et am in e, whe th er or no t th e en ha nc em en t req ui res pr oo f th at th e d efen da nt kn ew of

th e im po rta ti on

.

2. The Ro le Enh an cem en t. The se nt e n c i n g gu id el in es im po se a fo ur -le ve l

en ha nc em en t “ [i]f th e de fen da nt was an or ga ni zer or le ad er of a cri m in al act iv it y th at in vo lv ed fiv e or m or e pa rti ci pa nt s or was ot he rwis e ex te ns iv e.” U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 (a).

-1 1-In di ci a of a le ad ers hi p ro le in cl ud e “ th e ex erci se o f d e ci si on m ak in g au th or it y , th e

na tu re of pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co m m is si on of th e of

fen se

. . . th e de gr ee of pa rti ci pa ti on in pl an ni ng or or ga ni zi ng th e of fen se

. . . an d th e de gr ee of co nt ro l an d a u t h o r i t y

ex erci se d ov er ot he rs .” § 3B 1.1
, co m m en t. (n .4). A de fen da nt “ ne ed or ga ni ze or le ad

on ly on e pa rti ci pa nt to tri gg er th e en ha nc em en t.” Uni te d St at es v. Max well
, 77 8 F.3 d
71 9, 73 6 (8t h Cir.) (qu ot at io n om it te d)
, cert

. de ni ed , 13 5 S. Ct

. 28 27 (2 01 5)

. Tizo c
arg ue s th e di st r i c t co ur t cl earl y erre d be cau se th e ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h h is org an iz at io na l o r le ad ers hi p ro le

.

W e co nc lu de th at am

pl e ev id en ce su pp or ts th e le ad ers hi p en ha nc em en t. Hul l

te st ifi ed Tizo c’s ru nn ers wou ld ha ve to ob ta in hi s pe rm i s s i o n be fo re se ll in g

m et ha m ph et am in e to Hul l o n c red it , dem on st rat in g b ot h de ci si on -m ak in g a ut ho rit y

a n d c o nt ro l ov er su bo rd in at e co ns pi rat or s. See Mo rri s, 79 1 F.3 d at 91 4. Hul l an d
Ram on Esp in oz a, who bo ug ht m et ha m ph et am in e fo r res al e fro m Tizo c, te st ifi ed he

wou ld pe rs on al ly co nf

ro nt th em whe n th ey fel l be hi nd on th ei r dr ug de bt
, ev id en ci ng

m an ag em en t of the co ns pi racy’ s fin an ci al op erat io ns

. A te xt -m es sa ge ex ch an ge in
whi ch a Tizo c cu st om er ask ed an as so ci at e to fin d ou t what Tizo c wou ld ch arg e fo r

a pa rti cu la r qu antit

y of m et ha m

ph et am in e pu rch as es was ev id en ce of hi s pr ic e-s et ti ng

au th or it y . See Will is , 43 3 F .3d at 6 36

.

3. Pro ced ur al Erro r. Tizo c as se rts th e di st ric t co ur t co m m it te d two pr oc ed ur al

se nt en ci ng erro rs

. The se cl ai m s were no t rai se d at se nt en ci ng so we rev ie w fo r pl ai n

erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Kir li n, 85 9 F.3 d 53 9, 54 3 (8 th Ci r.), cert

. de ni ed
, 13 8
S. Ct . 40 5 (2 01 7)

.

Fi rs t, Tizo c arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d i n f a i li ng to ad dr es s m it ig at in g

se nt en ci ng fact or s un de r 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a) -- h e h as a wife an d ne wbo rn ch il d; a

re d u c ed se nt en ce wou ld ad eq ua te ly de te r a fir st -ti m e of fen de r; an d he was y ou ng whe n h e b ecame inv ol ve d i n t he co ns pi racy. Aft er st at in g it rev ie wed th e PSR an d
bo th si de s’ se nt en ci ng m em or a n da
, th e di st ric t co ur t ex pl ic it ly weig he d Tizo c’s

-1 2-you th
, la ck of cri m in al hi st or y , an d th e ne ed to av oi d un warra nt ed se nt en ci ng

di sp ari ti es in fas hi on in g th e se nt en ce. The co ur t ex pl ai ne d th at it “ ap pr eci at e[d ] an d
unde rs t[ ood] ” T iz oc ’ s se nte nc ing re co m m en da tio n, bu t co nc lu de d th at th e se ri ousn es s of Tiz o c ’s of

fen se warra nt ed a gr eat er se nt en ce. The co ur t’s di sc us si on of th e § 35 53 (a) fact or s was m or e th an ad eq ua te

. The re was no pr oc ed ur al erro r. See Ri ta
v. Un it ed Sta te s, 5 51 U.S. 33 8, 3 59 (20 07 ).

Seco nd
, Tizo c arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t ba se d it s se nt en ce on cl earl y erro ne ou s fact s -- th at Tizo c’s in vo lv em en t was “ bi g” an d th e c r i mi n a l en te rp ris e was

“ ex tra or di na ril y da ng ero us fo r a lo t of p e o p l e

. ” Pro ced ur al erro r can in cl ud e

“ se le ct in g a se nt en ce ba se d on cle arl y erro ne ou s fa ct s.” Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 9 ) ( e n b a n c ) (q uo ta ti on om it te d)

. Tizo c ha s no t sh own th e di st ric t co ur t cl earl y erre d, le t al on e pl ai nl y erre d, in de sc rib in g hi s in vo lv em en t as “ bi g” an d th e en te rp ris e as “ ex tra or di na ri l y d a n ge ro us .” Tho ug h
Tizo c ch arac te riz es th e op erat io n as m id -s iz e, th e PSR at tri bu te d 32 .98 kg of

m et ha m ph et am in e to Tizo c, an d th e co ur t fo un d th at he ex erci se d an org an iz at io na l

or le ad ers hi p ro le in th e co ns pi racy. The di st ric t co ur t’s de sc rip ti on of th e en te rp ris e

as “ ex tra or di na ril y da ng ero us ” was su pp or te d by ev id en ce t he op erat io n rel ie d on th reat s o f ph y si cal vi ol en ce, t he m ul ti pl e fi rear m s fo un d at th e Z S tre et ga rag e, an d
Ram on Esp in oz a’s te st im on y th at Ti zo c m ad e th reat en in g st at em en ts cau si ng Esp in oz a to fear fo r hi s li fe whe n he fel l be hi nd in pa y in g hi s dr ug de bt

. The di st ric t

co ur t di d no t co m

m it pl ai n pr oc ed ur al erro r by ba s i n g i t s se nt en ce on cl earl y

erro ne ou s fa ct s.

4. Su bs ta nt iv e U n r e a so na bl en es s. Tizo c arg ue s th e 30 0- m on th se nt en ce is

su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab l e , an is su e we rev ie w f or ab us e of di sc ret io n, “ be ari ng in

m in d th at , whe n a di st ric t co ur t ha s se nt en ced a de fen da nt b e l o w th e ad vi so ry
gu id el in es ran ge , it is ne arl y in co nc ei va bl e th at th e co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t

va ry in g d own ward st il l fu rth er.” Ma xwe ll , 77 8 F .3d at 7 34 (qu ot at io n o m it te d)

.

-1 3-Tizo c arg ue s th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le be cau se it crea te s a

si gn ifi can t di sp ari ty w it h c o- de fen da nt s h is PSR d eem ed m os t cu lp ab le -- Sal va do r Nun ez-Tre

jo, Hul l, an d Esp in oz a. Bu t Nun ez-Tre jo an d Hul l bo th pl ead ed gu il ty, an d
Hul l co op erat ed wit h th e go ve rn m en t, pr om pt in g a su bs ta nt ia l-a ss is ta nc e m ot io n

un de r U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1. See Uni te d St at es v. Gall eg os , 48 0 F.3 d 85 6, 85 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ). Esp in oz a, th e on ly co -d efen da nt who wen t to tri al
, ha d a lo wer gu id el in es

ran ge be cau se he di d no t recei ve a ro le en ha nc em en t. See Un it ed St at es v. Frau st o, 63 6 F.3 d 99 2, 99 7- 98 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The re is no un warra nt ed se nt en ci ng di sp ari ty be twee n de fen da nt s who se “ co nd uc t an d reco rd ” are d i f f e ren t fro m Tizo c’s.
Max well
, 77 8 F.3 d at 73 6. The di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in gr an ti ng

a co ns id erab le do wnwar d va ria nc e bu t st il l im po si ng a su bs ta nt ia l se nt en ce ba se d on Tizo c’s si gn ifi can t i nv ol ve m en t i n a ser io us dru g c on sp ira cy off en se

.

The jud gm en ts of t he di st ric t co ur t ar e aff irmed.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-