United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 20-3421

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Gabriel Orlando Ramirez

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Southern

____________ 

Submitted: October 22, 2021

Filed: December 28, 2021 

____________ 

Before COLLOTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

SHEPHERD, Circuit Judge. 

A jury convicted Gabriel Orlando Ramirez of conspiracy to distribute a 

controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district 

court1 sentenced him to 240 months imprisonment with 5 years supervised release. 

1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, District Judge for the District of South 

Dakota. 
-2- 

On appeal, Ramirez argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his 

conviction and that the district court erred in its calculation of methamphetamine 

attributable to him. Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and finding 

no error, we affirm.

I. 

 After receiving information that Ramirez was trafficking methamphetamine, 

local and federal law enforcement agencies launched a two-year investigation 

featuring surveillance, confidential informants, controlled drug transactions, and 

wiretaps of those controlled drug transactions. On May 31, 2019, officers executed 

a search warrant at Ramirez’s residence and arrested him. Following trial, a jury 

convicted Ramirez and the matter proceeded to sentencing. Ramirez’s Presentence 

Investigation Report (PSR) attributed a total of 21.04 kilograms of actual 

methamphetamine to Ramirez, which pursuant to United States Sentencing 

Guidelines (USSG) § 2D1.1, resulted in a base offense level of 38. Ramirez made 

three objections to the PSR in which he contested the amount of methamphetamine 

attributed to him, arguing that the amount ascertained from cooperating witness

Curtis Webb’s testimony was a “guess” and “exaggeration”; the amount derived 

from confidential informant Aaron Pope’s testimony was based on “guesses and 

estimates”; and for the same reasons, the total 21.04 kilograms attributed to him was 

inaccurate. However, at sentencing, the district court overruled all three of 

Ramirez’s objections, deeming Pope’s and Webb’s testimony credible. It calculated 

Ramirez’s criminal history category as III with a Guidelines range of 292 to 365 

months imprisonment before varying downward and sentencing Ramirez to 240 

months imprisonment with 5 years supervised release. 

II. 

Ramirez first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s 

verdict. Specifically, he contends that Pope and Webb were not credible, their 

testimony was “insubstantial,” and at best, the government’s evidence established a 
-3- 

buyer-seller relationship between Ramirez and the two cooperating witnesses but 

did not prove the existence of a conspiracy. 

“We . . . ‘review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain [this] conviction de 

novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and 

reversing only [where] no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty 

beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Ramirez-Martinez, 6 F.4th 859, 868 

(8th Cir. 2021) (second and third alterations in original) (citation omitted). “To 

establish that a defendant conspired to distribute drugs, the government must show 

that there was an agreement to distribute drugs, that the defendant knew of the 

conspiracy, and that the defendant intentionally joined the conspiracy.” United 

States v. Davis, 826 F.3d 1078, 1081 (8th Cir. 2016). “An agreement to join a 

conspiracy need not be explicit but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances 

of the case.” United States v. Conway, 754 F.3d 580, 587 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation 

omitted); see also Ramirez-Martinez, 6 F.4th at 868 (explaining “inferences from 

the parties’ actions” may be sufficient to show agreement). Further, “[b]uyer-seller 

relationship cases involve only evidence of a single transient sales agreement and 

small amounts of drugs consistent with personal use,” whereas “[e]vidence of 

multiple sales of resale quantities of drugs is sufficient in and of itself to make a 

submissible case of a conspiracy to distribute.” United States v. Peeler, 779 F.3d 

773, 776 (8th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted). 

At trial, Special Agent Emmet Warkenthien with the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives testified that he began utilizing Pope as a 

confidential informant in September 2018 and arranged several controlled drug 

transactions in which Pope purchased methamphetamine from Ramirez: on 

November 5, 2018, Ramirez “fronted”2 approximately 48.4 grams of 

methamphetamine to Pope; on December 3, 2018, Ramirez fronted Pope another 

2

Witness testimony defined “fronted” as meaning that Ramirez would give 

methamphetamine to Pope or Webb without requiring any payment, and after Pope 

or Webb had re-distributed that methamphetamine and earned a profit, they would 

pay Ramirez. 
-4- 

approximately 62 grams of methamphetamine; and on February 25, 2019, Ramirez 

sold Pope approximately 59.9 grams of methamphetamine. Pope testified that, prior 

to becoming a confidential informant, he began buying methamphetamine from 

Ramirez, whom he knew as “Cheech,” in 2017. Pope purchased methamphetamine 

from Ramirez approximately every one to two weeks and estimated that, prior to 

becoming a confidential informant, he purchased a total of ten pounds of 

methamphetamine from Ramirez. 

Sergeant John Spaeth of the Sioux Falls Police Department testified that after 

receiving information that Ramirez was involved in the sale of narcotics, he began 

investigating Ramirez. He conducted surveillance of Ramirez during this 

investigation and was therefore able to identify Ramirez in court. Narcotics 

Detective Dan Christiansen with the Minnehaha County Sheriff’s Office then 

testified that he began investigating Ramirez in 2018 and used a confidential 

informant to participate in four controlled purchases of methamphetamine from

Webb. Upon Webb’s arrest, he identified Ramirez as a source of methamphetamine. 

Detective Christiansen explained that Webb, pursuant to his plea agreement, later 

agreed to cooperate and assist the government with its investigation of Ramirez. 

Webb testified that he was introduced to Ramirez, whom he also knew as 

“Cheech,” in late 2018. Webb initially purchased methamphetamine from an 

individual known as “Thug P,” and Thug P charged Webb $8,000 for one pound of 

methamphetamine. Thug P obtained methamphetamine from Ramirez, and to cut 

costs, Webb began purchasing methamphetamine directly from Ramirez, cutting out 

the “middleman.” Webb testified that unlike Thug P, Ramirez charged only $5,000 

to $6,000 per pound of methamphetamine. Webb testified that he met with Ramirez 

“pretty often,” purchasing methamphetamine from Ramirez on an approximately 

weekly basis, typically purchasing one to two pounds of methamphetamine on each 

occasion. However, Webb testified that on two occasions, he purchased four pounds 

of methamphetamine from Ramirez and paid as much as $32,000 per transaction. 

As with Pope, Webb explained that Ramirez often fronted methamphetamine to him 

and after he sold the methamphetamine and earned a profit, he would pay Ramirez. 
-5- 

On the day of Webb’s arrest, law enforcement officers seized approximately two 

pounds of methamphetamine from him, and at trial, Webb testified that he had 

obtained the two pounds of methamphetamine from Ramirez earlier that same day. 

Webb explained that he purchased methamphetamine from Ramirez for resale to 

individuals who would then resell it. 

The government introduced testimony from a forensic chemist with the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA), who testified to the weights and purity of 

methamphetamine sold by Ramirez, along with wiretapped recordings from the 

controlled drug transactions between Pope and Ramirez and photographs of the 

approximately two pounds of methamphetamine seized from Webb on the day of his 

arrest. 

Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, a 

reasonable jury could find Ramirez guilty of conspiracy to distribute a controlled 

substance beyond a reasonable doubt. The quantities of methamphetamine involved 

far surpassed the “small amounts of drugs consistent with personal use.” See id. 

Further, the testimony of Pope and Webb is alone sufficient to establish Ramirez’s 

involvement in the conspiracy. See Conway, 754 F.3d at 587. However, the 

government did not rely solely on Pope’s and Webb’s testimony but instead, also 

presented testimony from multiple law enforcement officers (who corroborated 

Pope’s and Webb’s testimony) and a forensic chemist with the DEA, in addition to 

exhibits including wiretapped recordings from the controlled drug transactions 

between Pope and Ramirez and photographs of the approximately two pounds of 

methamphetamine seized from Webb on the day of his arrest. Ultimately, we find 

there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict. 

Ramirez next argues that the district court erred in its calculation of the drug 

quantity attributable to Ramirez. “On appeal, ‘[w]e review [a district court’s drugquantity finding] for clear error and reverse only when “the entire record definitely 

and firmly illustrates that the lower court made a mistake.”’” United States v. 

McArthur, 11 F.4th 655, 659 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (alterations in original) 
-6- 

(citation omitted). “At sentencing, ‘[t]he government bears the burden of proving 

drug quantity by a preponderance of the evidence.’” Id. (alteration in original) 

(citation omitted). When determining the drug quantity attributable to Ramirez, the 

district court was free to “consider amounts from drug transactions in which [he] 

was not directly involved if those dealings were part of the same course of conduct 

or scheme,” and “[t]his includes all transactions known or reasonably foreseeable to 

[him] that were made in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Id. (citation omitted). 

Additionally, “[a] sentencing court may determine drug quantity based on the 

testimony of a co-conspirator alone,” United States v. Sarabia-Martinez, 276 F.3d 

447, 450 (8th Cir. 2002), and “a district court’s assessment of witness credibility is 

quintessentially a judgment call and virtually unassailable on appeal,” United States 

v. Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 928, 938 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). 

 

Ramirez objected to the PSR’s factual statements regarding the quantities of 

methamphetamine attributable to him, challenging those quantities which were 

determined from Pope’s and Webb’s testimony alone. However, the district court 

overruled Ramirez’s objections, finding that Ramirez’s drug distribution conspiracy 

involved 21.04 kilograms of methamphetamine. Ramirez’s argument is one of 

credibility. At sentencing, he argued that Pope’s and Webb’s testimony about the 

amount of methamphetamine obtained from him is based on guesses and 

estimations, and the district court should only attribute to him those quantities which 

were actually recovered from Pope or Webb (i.e., a total of 1,088.1 grams or a 

summation of the 935.8 grams seized from Webb and the 43.6, 55.8, and 52.9 grams 

recovered from Pope). However, the district court found Pope’s and Webb’s 

testimony credible. See R. Doc. 108, at 9 (“I listened to the testimony of Mr. Webb 

and Mr. Pope, and I found both of them to be believable witnesses.”). Specifically, 

the district court noted that when Webb was arrested and found in possession of 

methamphetamine, he immediately identified Ramirez as his source. Further, the 

district court noted that Pope was a confidential informant who participated in 

several controlled purchases from Ramirez, which the district court found 

corroborated Pope’s testimony that he purchased approximately ten pounds of 

methamphetamine from Ramirez prior to becoming a confidential informant. In 
-7- 

deciding that a base offense level of 38 was appropriate, the district court found that 

in light of the other evidence presented at trial, the testimony of Webb and Pope 

would have to be discounted dramatically to affect the offense level and that the 

evidence did not warrant discounting their testimony to that extent. The district court 

explained: 

There was a quantity of over 21 kilograms of actual methamphetamine 

attributed to the defendant. For him to fall to a level 36, it would have 

to be an amount less than 4.5 kilograms of methamphetamine actual, 

which is more than 16 kilograms less than what he’s attributed to in the 

report. So even giving all benefit of the doubt to the defendant, he 

would be—remain in the level 38 where he is currently classified under 

the [PSR].

R. Doc. 108, at 10.

After reviewing the evidence presented at trial and the arguments set forth at 

sentencing, we find that there is nothing in the record which “definitely and firmly 

illustrates that the lower court made a mistake.” McArthur, 11 F.4th at 659 (citation 

omitted). All other evidence aside, the testimony of Pope and Webb was alone 

sufficient to support the district court’s drug quantity determination, SarabiaMartinez, 276 F.3d at 450, and the district court was free to deem their testimony 

credible, see Rodriguez, 711 F.3d at 938. Therefore, finding no clear error, we 

affirm the district court’s drug quantity determination. 

III. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court. 

______________________________