File Na me: 08a0038n.06 Filed: January

10, 2008 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 06-6052 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, Plaintiff-Appellee , v. RO NN I E LARKI

NS, De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E WE STE RN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

/ B e fo re : MA RTI

N, GI B B ON S, a

nd SUT TO N, Cir c uit

Judg e s. B OY CE F . M AR TI

N, JR., Ci rc uit

Judg e . Ro nn ie L arki ns wa s c on vic te d o f c on sp ir a c y to p o s s e s s wi t h i n t en tt o d i s t ri b u t e f i ft y gra m s o r m o re o f p u re m et h am p h et am i n e, a s ch ed u l e II controlled substanc e. He appea ls his conviction, alleg ing that the district court er red in a llowing the g overnme nt to present

te s ti mo ny r e g a r d in g p r io r c o n s is te nt s ta

te me nts , allowing evidenc e of L arkins’s history of marijuana

sales, and taking judicial notice of a conversion factor without issuing a limiting instruction. Although we find that the admission of prior consistent stateme nts in thi s case may have be e n e rr or , we a ff

ir m the dis tr ic t c ourt

on the oth e r t

wo ru lin g s and

fi nd that any e rr or wa s h a rm le ss in light of the e vidence prese nted. Acc ording ly , we AF FI RM L arkins’s c onviction.

I.No. 06-6052

United States v. Larkins Pag e 2 The fa cts prese nted at trial wer e as follows. In or ar ound 1996, Ronnie L arkins deve loped a b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h M an u e l L o p e z , w h o t r an s p o rt e d m ar i j u an a f r o m M e x i c o t o K e n tu c ky. Ab ou t tw o y e ars int o th e ir re la tio ns hip , L ark ins tol d L op e z that he wa nte d to e xpand the bu sin e ss t o methamphetamine, a

nd that his nephew D avid had c ontacts who would b u y i t
. There afte r, L opez beg an bring ing me thamphetamine – se parate from a nd in additio n t o t h e m arijuana – to L arkins’s far m, to be distributed from there

. The methamphetamine had been of poor qualit y for some time by the s pring of 2003, when L ark ins and

Da vid de c ide d to sen d War

re n Stap le s, a me tha

mph e tamin e us e r, wi th L ark ins to s a mpl e the drug s prior t o purcha se. Staples flew to Mexi co with L arkins, met with L opez, and sampled the drug . L arkins and L opez then ag ree d on a purc hase. While in Mexi co, the three took a number of photos of themselves, which the g overnme nt submitt ed into evidenc e at tria l. L arkins made another tr ip t o M e xico in Augus t 20 03 wi th a mor e e xpe ri e nc e d te ste r n a me d T e rr y B ive ns , a nd ano the r t ri p in J anuar y 2004. After

this J anuar

y trip, L arkins wa s cut out of the loop as a business partner

. On e y e ar l a te r, DE A a g e nts be g an in te rv ie wi ngthe va ri ou s co- c on sp ir a tor s a

bo ut t he ir involvement with the methamphetamine and marijuana traff icking

. David L arkins wa s interviewe d by DEA ag ents on J anuar

y 14, 2005 and Mar ch 3, 2005. Warre n Staples was intervie wed on Ma rch 18, 2005, and intervie ws with Terr y Bive ns and Manue l L opez were taken in January 2006. At L arkins’s tria l, the g overnme nt submit ted testimony from L opez, Staples and Bive ns. The g overnme nt a lso submitted testimony about the content of pretria l inter views wit h co -c o n spirators from the DE A ca se ag ent who had done the interviews. L arkins also testified at his trial, admitti ng that he had ta

ken seve ral trips to M ex i co and Texas. He said that althoug h he knew that his travelNo. 06-6052

United States v. Larkins Pag e 3 companions we re me thamphetamine addicts, he did not know of any drug transac tions. He a lleg ed ins te a d th a t his pri mary purp os e on the tr ips wa s to c oll e c t arr ow he a ds and marb le s a

nd to g o to str ip clubs. He f

urther ma intained that he was never involved in the traff icking of marijuana . At the end

o f t h e t rial, the district cour t instructed the jury

that they

must determine the amount of methamphetamine use d in the crime, and then took judicia l notice that one pound is equa l to 453.6 g rams. L arkins objected t o the judicial notice of this conversion rate, but did not request a limiting ins tr uc tio n te lli ngthe jur

y that it wa s not re qu ir e d to ac c e pt t his fa c t a s tr

ue . T he jur

y c on vic te d h im of conspira cy

to possess with intent to di stribute 50 g rams or more of pure me thamphetamine, a nd he wa s sentence d to 288 months i n prison. L arkins alleg es that t here wer e seve ral e rror s committed at trial. First, L arkins ar g ues that testimony from the DE A agent about the content of his intervie ws with the co-c onspirators wa s inadmissible hearsa

y . Second, L arkins ar g ues that the district cour t s h o u l d n ot have pe rmitted t e s t i m o n y a

b o u tL ar k i n s ’ s p r i o r

m ar i j u an a s c h e m e u n d e r

F e d e r a l E v i d e n c e R

u l e 4 0 4 ( b )

. F i n a l l y, L ark ins argue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld n ot h a ve take n ju dici al notic e of the c on ve rs ion

rate be tw e e n p ound s and

g ra ms. A di strict court’s evidentiary ruling s are revie wed for abuse of discre tion. Be c k v . H aik , 377 F.3d 624, 636 ( 6th Cir. 2004). I f a r eviewingcourt finds e rror in the proce eding s, reve rsal is not

war rante d if the United States can demonstrate that the er ror wa s harmless. United States v. Hasting , 461 U.S. 499, 509 (1983).

II.No. 06-6052

United States v. Larkins Pag e 4 1) Pr ior Con sis te nt S

tat e me nts A prior statement of a witness is not hear say and may be used as substantive e vidence when i ti s “c o n s i s t en twi t h t h e d ec l ar an t ’s t es t i m o n y an d i s o ff er ed t o re b u t an ex p re s s o r i mp l i edch ar ge ag ainst the dec lara

nt of rec ent fa

brication or improper influenc e o r motive.” F ED . R. E V ID . 801(d)( 1)(B ). The S upreme Court has explained that this provision i ncludes the r equire ment that the prior stateme nt must have bee n made be fore the witness’s motive to fabr icate a rose. Tome v. United States , 513 U.S. 150, 167 (1995). At tr ia l, D EAa g e nt A tki ns te sti fied a bo ut t he c on te nt o f h is i nv e sti g a tio n in te rv ie ws wi th David, Staples, B ivens, and L opez. L arkins claims that Atkins should not ha ve been allowed to re peat what h e h ad b ee n told in the interviews, and suc h testimony was inadmissible hea

rsay . The g overnme nt contends that the stateme nts were proper ly admitte d as substantive evide nce unde r 801(d)( 1)(B ) to rebut the char g e of a conspiracy to frame L arkins, af ter L arkins’s c ounsel ca lled the

c o- c on sp ir a tor s’ state me nts i nto qu e sti on by say ingthat th e wi tne sse s w ante d “ to n a il [L ark ins ] to

save the mse lve s, and we ’r e g oin g to p ro ve mot ive he re . . . . [Th e g ov e rnme nt] i s r e lyingon the se convi ct ed felons who ha

ve pled guilty

to say that it’s true. And I

tell y ou it may

be a c onspiracy within them.” B e c a us e th e distr ic t c ourt

ma de no fi nd inga s to wh e n th e c o- c on sp ir a tor s’ mot ive s to lie

arose , the admission of the statements may have be en in er

ror if a dmitted under F ED . R. E V ID . 801(d)( 1)(B ). Howeve r, any such er ror in this case was ha

rmless in light of the othe r evide nce prese nted and the e ffe ctive impeac hment of the witnesse s and their state ments at trial.No. 06-6052

United States v. Larkins Pag e 5 Error

in the admission of i mpermissible hear say testimony

can be harmless if the te stimony is effe ctively

impeache d. Un ite d S

tat es v . Tr uji llo , 376 F.3d 593, 611 ( 6th Cir. 200 4 ). Fi rs t , the

cre dibilit y of the interview statements was eff ectively impeache d when Ag ent Atkins a dmitted that the witnesses may

not have told the trut h t o i n vestig ating ag ents and that ther e we re no ta pe

rec ording s of the conve rsations, only repor ts written up to severa l day s after the interview s. Second,

eac h of the witn esses was impeache d when que stioned about his plea ag ree ment, and the jury was

awa re that eac h had a pote ntial reduc tion in sentence a s a re sult of hi s testimony

. See U nited States v. Jone s , 766 F.2d 994, 1004 (6th Cir. 1985) (witnesses eff ectively impeache d when jury

knew that witnesses testified pursua nt to a plea a g ree ment, with motions for reduction of se ntence still pending ). One of the witnesses, L opez, a lso a dmitted lying to the police duringthe investig ation, further calling his testimony

into question. More impor

ta n t t h anth e im

p e a c h me n t o f

th e h e ar s ay , h o w e v e r , w e r e th e g o v e r n me n t’ s persua sive evidenc e ag ainst L arkins at tria l and L a r k in s ’ s u n b e li evable defe nse. F irst, the g overnme nt prese nted a list, seiz ed fr om L opez, that contained the phone numbers of the conspirac y members a

nd included L arkins’s number . I t also prese nted flig ht rec ords f ro m S outhwest Airlines showing the chronolog y

of L arkins’s tra

vels with the co-c onspirators, and the photogr aphs of L arkins with the coc o n s p i r a t o r s i n M e xi c o . L ar k i n s ’ s o n l y e xp l an a t i o n f o r t h e s e t r i p s w a s t h a t h e w e n t t o M e xi c o to collect a rrowhe ads and ma

rbles and to patronize strip clubs. We find that the weig ht of other evidenc e, combined with the eff ective impeachme nt of the argu ab l y hear say testimony , makes a

ny err or by the district court in admitting A g ent Atkins’s state me nt h a rm le ss.No. 06-6052

United States v. Larkins Pag e 6 2) Evidenc e of past marijuana sales At tr ia l, t he g ov e rnme nt p res ente d te sti mony a bo ut t he c o- c on sp ir a tor s’ a lle g e d s c he me to traff ick in marijuana, a

nd how that sche me g rewinto a methamphetamine busine ss. The district court

a llo we d th e e vid e nc e of

the mari jua na sc he me a s res gestae , or bac kg round, evidenc e. L arkins does not dispute the res gestae ruling and addr esses it nowher e in hi s initi al brief . I nstead, he now alleg es that the evidenc e should not have been a dmitted under Rule 404(b) of the Fe dera l Rules of Evidence

. I no r d e r to b e a d mi tted, r es g es tae evidenc e must have a temporal, c ausal, or spatial

connec tion to the other ac ts and the cha rg ed off ense. United States v. Hardy , 228 F .3 d 745 , 7 48 (6 th Cir. 2000). Be cause L arkins off ers no e vidence t h at t h e co n nection betwe en the ( backg round) marijuana conspirac y

and the ( char g ed) me thamphetamine c onspiracy fails to meet this standard or that the judg e er

red in this deter

mination, we dec line to overrule the district court’s a dmission of the evidenc e. Even unde r Rule 404(b), the evidence would be admissible. The rule states that evidenc e of past crimes ma

y be admissible as proof of motive, oppor tunity , intent, pr epar ation, plan, knowledg e, identity , or abse nce of

mistake or ac cident. F ED . R. E V ID . 404(b). Ma ny of these f actor s were prese nt he re : th e pa st c on sp ir a c y sh ow e d mo tiv e (e xpand ingan a lr e a dy profi tab le busi ne ss) , o pp or tun ity (showing L arkins ’s co n t acts in t he drugtrade ), and pr epar ation (showing the deve lopment of the business from marijuana to me thamphetamine)

. As such, the district cour t did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evide nce.

3) The jury instructionsNo. 06-6052

United States v. Larkins Pag e 7 At trial, the distri ct court’s jury instructions included the following statement: “You a re instructed that one pound is equal to 453.6 g rams.” I t g ave no limit ing instruction stating that the jury was pe rmitted, but not required, to a cce pt this fact as true

. L arkins ar g ues that the stateme nt allowed the judg e to ef

fec tively direc t a ver dict. This misstates both the law and the nature of the instruction. Th e F e de ra l Ru le s o f E vid e nc e pe rm it j ud ic ia l no tic e of a fa c t “ no t su

bje c t to re a so na

ble dispute in that it is either (1) gene rally known wit hin the t err itorial jurisdiction of the trial cour t or (2)

c a pa ble of a c c ur a te and re a dy de te rm inatio n b y re so rt to s ourc e s w ho se a c c ur a c y c ann ot r e a so na

bly be questioned.” F ED . R. E V ID . 2 0 1 ( b )

. In a c r i m i n a l c a s e , t h e c o u rts h a l l i n s t r u c tt h e j u r y t h a ti tm a y, but is not r equire d to, a cce pt a s conclusive a ny fac t judicially

noticed. Id. at (g). In United States v. Me ntz , this Court ruled that “[a] t rial cour t commits constit utional error when it takes judicia l notice of fa cts constituting an e ssential element of the cr ime char g ed, but fa ils to instruct the jury acc ording to rule 201(g ).” 840 F .2d 315, 322 (6th Cir. 1988). Clearly , the judicial notice itself was prope r. In United States v. Robinson , we noted that “we

are confide nt, de spite Robinson’s objec tion, that the district c ourt proper ly took judicial notice of the appropr iate multipliers for conve rting betwee n pounds, g rams, and kilogr ams. We are not awar e that th is is a matt e r ‘ s u b je c t t o r e a s o n a

b le d is p u te , ’ [un d e r ] F ED . R. E V ID . 201(b).” 390 F.3d 853, 877 n.35 (6th Cir. 2004). As for the c ourt’s fa ilure to issue a limiting instruction, the rule in Me ntz a pp lie s o nly

to f a c ts constituting an e ssential element of the crime. Her e, the fac t judicially noticed wa s not an essential

e le me nt; rathe r, it w a s si mp ly an in te rp re ta tio n o f a fe de ra l st a tut e that g ive s w e ig ht i n g ra ms.No. 06-6052

United States v. Larkins Pag e 8 Al tho ug h the we ig ht of the dr ug s ultim a te ly fo un d by the jur y is an e sse nti a l fa c t, t

he ins tr uc tio n d id not subvert this by

g iving a simple weig hts-and-me asure s conver sion.

I I I

. Be cause any

possible error

committed by

the district co u rt was harmless, and bec ause the district court did not abuse its discre tion in either its evidentiary ruling s or jury

instructions, we AFF I RM the conviction.