Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 20702

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. C A R L O S L U IS G U E R R A ; H EC TO R M AN U EL N U N EZ D efen da n t s - A pp el l an t s

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 06- C R

- 433- 1

B ef ore JO L L Y , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * A j ur y c o nvi c t e d Car l o s Lui s G ue r r a andH e c t o rM anue lN une z of conspir acy t o di st ribu t e m ore t h an f ive kil ogram s of

cocai n e u n der 21 U

. S

. C

. §§ 8 4 1 (a)( 1 ), 84 1 (b)( 1 )(A)(i i), an d 84 6 , an daidin g a n dab etti n g p os s e ssion w i th i n t en tt o di st ribu t e m ore t h an f ive kil ogram s of

coc ai n e un der 21 U

. S

. C

. §§ 8 4 1 (a)( 1 ) an d 8 4 1 (b)( 1 )(A)(i i) an d1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2. G u erra an dN u n ez ap p ea lbo th t h e i rc o n v i c t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e s . F o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e dh e r e i n , w e a f f i r m. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April6, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 20702

2 I. T h e fo llo w in gfa c ts w e r e p r e s e n te da t t r ia l. A l f on so A lvarez, a pol i ce of f i cer w i t h t h e Sou t h H ou st on P ol i ce D e p a r tm e n t, w a s w o r k in gu n d e r c o v e rw h e n a n in fo r m a n t t o ldh i m t h a t L u is G ue r r a w as s e l l i ng l ar ge q uant i t i e s o f c o c ai ne . The i nform ant , G uad e l upe C on t reras, w as a convic t ed f el on w h o kn ew G u erra. C on t reras cal l ed G u erra on A lvarez’ s beh al f

an d ask ed w h et h er G u erra c ou l d secure coc ai n e f or A lvarez. G u e r r a a g r e e d , a n d C o n tr e r a s a r r a n g e d fo rth e th r e e to m e e t a t a lo c a l ta q u e r ia
o n O c to b e r3 1 , 2 0 0 6 , to d is c u s s th e d e a l. A t t h e ta q u e r ia G u e r r a t o ldA lv a r e z a n dC o n tr e r a s th a t h e w o u ldo n lys e ll t hem t he c oc ai ne athi s r es i denc e. W hen t he t hre e l at erl ef tt he t aquer i a, A lvarez an d C on t reras f ol l ow ed G u erra t o H ect or N u n ez’ s hom e at 731 0 L egacy P in e s D r iv e . T h e yw a tc h e d G u e r r a p u ll in to th e d r iv e w a ya n ds p o k e w ith h im byc e l lpho ne t o c o nf

i r m t he r e s i de nc e w as t he pl ac e t he t r ans ac t i o n woul d t ak e pl ace. Th e nex tdayA lvarez an d G u erra s pok e vi a ph on e an d arran ged t o m eet atN unez’ s hom e o n N ove m ber2. O n N ove m ber2, A lvar ez an d G uer r a com m uni c at ed vi a cel lph one. T hat
a ft ern oo n A lva rez dr ov e C on tre ra s to N u n ez ’ s h om e a n dl et C on trera s ou t t o
v e r i f yt h e c o c a i n e w a s t h e r e ; A lv a r e z t h e n d r o v e o f f

. C o n t r e r a s e n t e r e dt h e h o me and G uer r a s how ed hi m t he c oc ai ne. Contr er as t es t i f i ed t hat N unez, w ho w as st an di n g n earby, prom i sed h im th e cocai n e “ w as good. ” C on t reras t h en cal l ed A lv a r e z , w h o re tu r n e d to p ic k h im u p . A lvarez i m m edi atel y al ert ed ag en t s w h o ha d been surveyi n g 731 0 L egacy P i n es D rive t h at t h ere w as coc ai n e i n t h e hom e. O n e of t h ose agen t s w as V i ol et Szel ec zky- B r ow n. She t es t i f i ed t haton t he m or ni ng of N ov em ber2 s he s aw N unez s t andi ng i n t he o pen gar age. At ar ound noon she saw a w hi t e pi c kup t hat
w as reg iste re d t o N u n ez pu l li n t o t h e drivew ay; G u erra w as i t s passeng er. G u erra gotout of

t h e t ruck and en t ered t h e hom e. H e t h en exi t ed the h om e, gotN o. 07- 20702

28U.S.C . § 841 : 1 (a) Unlawful acts

Except as authoriz ed b y this subch apter , it shall b e un lawfulfor any personknowinglyor intentionally– (1) to manufacture , distrib ute, or dispen se, orpossess with intent to manufacture, di stribute, or di spense, a controlled substance

3 b a c k in to th e p a s s e n g e rs id e o f th e tr u c k , a n dle ft. S z e le c z k y - B r o w n w a s s till
w atc h i n g w h en , t h ree h ou rs l ater , G u erra r et u rned , t h i s t i m e as t h e passen ger of a w hi t e Vol ksw agen Je t t a. W hen G u erra e n t er ed t he hom e, t he c ardr ove aw ay. G uer r a and N unez l at erc am e o ut si de and pl ayed bas ketbal l

. Sze l ec zkyBro w n t e s t i f

i e d t hata t som e po i ntG ue r r a t o o k apho ne c al lo n hi s c e l lpho ne a n d , a fte rh e h u n gu p , h e s p o k e to N u n e z a n dth e tw o b e g a n ju m p in gin th e a ir
a n d g a v e e a c h o t h e r a h i g h f iv e . M i n u t e s l a t e r , a n a v y p i c k u p p u l l e d i nt o t he drive. Am an l ateri den t i f i ed as A rnol do T revi n o got ou t of t h e t ruck a n d h an ded
a bl ue b agt o G ue r r a. Af t e rG ue r r a andN une z w al ke d i nt o t he ho m e , Tr e vi no dro ve aw ay. Al var ez and C ont r er as ar r ived shor t l y t her eaf t er , and Szel ec zkyB row n w atc h ed as C on t reras en t ered an d l aterexi t ed the h om e. Sho r t l y af

t e rAl va r e z a l e r t e d t he m , ag e nt s ar r ive d t o e xe c ut e s e ar c h a nd arrestw arran ts. T h ey f ou n d the bl u e bag a n d 17 bri cks of coc ai n e i n i t
. Th ey al s o f o und pi e c e s o f

pa pe ro n whi c h whata ppe ar e d t o b e m o ne t ar y c al c ul at i o ns hadb e e n wri t t e n. The a ge nt s s e i z e d t hate vi de nc e , a l o ng w i t h G u e r r a’ s a nd N u n ez’ s c el lph on es. Th ey arrest ed G u erra and N u n ez. F i n gerpri n t s t ak en fro m b ot h t h e bag a n d the pi eces of pap er w ere l ater
m atc h ed to t h ose of

G u erra. C el lph on e rec ords show ed t h at on t h e dayG u erra me tA lv a r e z a n d C o n t r e r a s a tt h e t a q u e r i a , Gu e r r a c a l l e dNu n e z t wen t y - t wo t i m es. O n N o ve m be r2 9, a g r andj ur y i ndi c t e d Guer r a, N une z , a nd Ar no l do Trevi no an d c harge d t hem w i t h co nspi r ac y t o di st r ibut e m or e t han f ive ki l o gr am s o f

c o c ai ne und e r2 1 U

. S. C. § § 84 1( a) ( 1) , 84 1(b) ( 1) (A) (i i) , and 84 6, a nd 1 2N o. 07- 20702

**** (b) Pen alties E xc e p t a s oth erwi s e p rovi d e d in s e ctio n 8 5 9 , 8 6 0 , or 8 6 1 , of this title , anyper son who viol ates subsection (a) of this sectionshall be sente nced a s f ollows: (1) (A) In the cas e of violation of sub se cti on (a) of thissection involving–   (ii) 5 kilograms or more of a mixture or substance cont aining adetectab lea mount of – ** ** (I I) cocaine, it s salt s, op tical and geom etric is om er s, an d salt s of is om er s; **** such personshall be sentence d to a term of imprisonment which may not b e le ss th an1 0yearsor moreth anlif e . . . . 28U.S.C . § 846 : 2 Any personwho attempts to or conspire s to commit anyoffe nse defined in this subch aptershall be subj ect to the same penalties a st ho se pre scribe d for the off ens e, th e com mi ss ion of whic h wasthe objectof the att em ptor cons pir acy. 18U.S.C . § 2: 3 (a) Whoever com mitsanoff en sea gain stth e UnitedS tate s or aid s, ab et s, coun sels, co mmands, induces or procure s its commission , is punishable as aprincipal. (b) Who ever willfullycause san act tobedone which if directly performe d byhi mo ranother would b e an offen se a gainst the United S tates, is punishableas a principal

. 4 ai di ng and abet t i ng pos se ss i on w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e m or e t han f ive ki l ogr am s of

c oc ai ne under21 U

. S. C

. §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 841 (b)( 1 )(A) (i i) and 18 U .S .C . § 2
. T r e v in o p le a d e d g u iltyt o c o n s p ir a c y ; G u e r r a a n dN u n e z tr ie dth e ir

3
c as e t o a j u r y andw e r e c o nvi c t e d o f b o t h c o ns pi r ac y anda i di ng anda be t t i ng p o s s e s s io n . Th e di st r i c tj ud ge se nt enc ed G uer r a t o t w o t er m s of 168 m ont hs, t o b e se r ved c onc urr ent l y, and t w o f ive- yeart er m s of

s uper vi se d r el eas e, al so t o b e s e r v e d co n c u r r e n tly

.N o. 07- 20702

5 Th e di st r i c tj udge s ent enc ed N unez t o t w o t er m s of 151 m ont hs eac h, to be
se r ved c onc urr ent l y, and t w o f ive- yeart er m s of

s uper vi se d r el eas e, al so t o b e se r ved c onc urr ent l y. II. O n app eal , G u erra an d N u n ez cha l l en ge t h ei r c on vi ct i on s and sentences. G u erra al l eges th e ev i den ce w as i n suff i ci en tt o convi cthi m of ei t h er c o n s p ir a c yo r a i d i n ga n da b e t t in gp o s s e s s io n , a n dth a tth e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s sentence w as un reasona bl e. N u n ez al so al l eges t h e evi d e n ce w a s i n suff i ci en tt o convi cthi m of ei t h er conspir acy or ai di n g an d ab e ttin gp osses si on . H e al so al l eges t h at t h e di st ri ct court’ s s en t en ce w as u n re a sona bl e, bu tspeci f i cal l y com pl ai n s t h at t h e di st ri ct
c o ur tus e d t he c o c ai ne ’ s ne tw e i ght , as opp o s e d t o i t s “ pur e ” w e i ght , t o de t e r m i ne hi s t ot alof

fens e l eve lf

ors ent enc i ng purpo se s. I n addi t i on, N unez c l ai m s t hat at hi s ar r ai gnm e nt he ar i ng t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e i nc o r r e c t l y s um m ar i zed t he
c har ge s a ga i ns thi m a nd t hus hi s no t

- guil t y pl e a w as no tkno w i ng and
vo l unt ar y. Fi nal l y, N une z c l ai m s t hat he w as c har ge d no tw i t h po s s e s s i o n, b ut
w i t h ai di n g an d ab et t i n g possessi on , an d the di st ri ctcourtt h eref ore er red w h en i ti ns t r uc t e d t he j ur y t hatN une z ha d b e e n c har ge d wi t h po s s e s s i o n. W e a ddr e s s t he s uf f i c i e nc y o f

t he e vi de nc e a nd r e as o nab l e ne s s o f t he
se nt enc es f

orbo t h G uer r a and N une z b efor e w e a ddre ss N unez’ s addi t i onal cl ai m s. III. Bot h Guer r a andN une z c l ai m t hatt he ev i de nc e a tt r i alw as i ns uf f i c i e nt to co n v ic t t h e m o f e ith e rco n s p ir a c yo ra id in ga n da b e tt in gp o s s e s s io n . I n e va l uat i ng t he s uf f i c i e nc y of

t he e vi de nc e , w e a s k “ w he t he ra ny
r e as o nab l e t ri ero f

fac tc o ul d ha ve f

o und t hatt he e vi de nc e e s t ab l i s he d t he
ess en ti a lelem en ts of th e crim e b ey on da re a s o n a b le d ou b t. ” Uni t e d S t at e s v. Mart i nez - Lugo , 411 F. 3d 597, 599 ( 5t h C i r . 2005) (c i t i ng Uni t e d S t at e s v. O r t egaN o. 07- 20702

6 R ey na , 1 48 F. 3d5 40 , 5 43 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 98 ) )

. W e c o ns i de r t he e vi de nc e “ i n t he l i ght
m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e v e r d ic t” a n dth e r e fo r e m u s t d r a w “ a ll re a s o n a b le i n feren ces in su p p ort of t h e v erd i ct. ” I d. W e a d d ress the con sp i ra cycon victi on f i rst. T o es tab l i sh con sp i ra cyto pos se ss an d di st r ibut e m or e t han f ive ki l ogr am s of

c oc ai ne, t he go ver nm enthad t o pr o ve t he f

o l l ow i n g el e m e nt s b e yo nd ar e as o nab l e do ubt : “ ( 1) a n a gr e e m e nt
w i t h o n e o t h e rp e r s o n t o p o s s e s s w i t h i n t e n t t o d i s t r ib u t e a tl e a s tf iv e k i l o g r a ms o f c o c a in e ; (2 ) d e fe n d a n t ’s k n o w le d g e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t ; a n d (3 ) d e fe n d a n t ’s
vo l u n tarypa rti ci p a ti on i n the con sp i ra cy . ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Perc el , 553 F. 3d 903, 9 1 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). G uer r a ar gues ge ner al l y th a t th er e w as no e vi denc e t hathe e nt er ed an
a g r e e m e n t w ith N u n e z a n d T r e v in o to p o s s e s s a n d d is tr ib u te c o c a in e . Itis w e llest abli shed , how ever, t h at “t h e j u ry can i n fer t h e exi st en ce of an agreem en tf

rom ci rcu m stan ti a lev i d en ce.” Id

. (c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Ch avez , 947 F. 2d 742, 745 ( 5th C i r. 1 991 ) )

. A ttri al , there w as m ore t h an adeq u ate c i rcum st an t i alevi den ce f r o m w hi c h a j ur y c o ul d i nfe rt he e xi s t e nc e o f an ag r e e m e nt be t w e e n Guer r a and N une z . Te s t i m o ny andc e l lpho ne r e c o r ds s ho w e d t hat o n O c t o be r3 1, 2 00 6, t he da y G u erra f

i rst agreed t o sel lcoc ai n e t o A lvarez an d C on t reras, G u erra c al l ed N une z t w e nt y- t w o t i m e s . A ge ntSze l e c z ky

- Bro w n t e s t i f i e d t hatw hi l e s ur ve yi ng N unez’ s hom e o n N ove m ber2, s he s aw G uer r a c om e a nd go, and al so s aw G ue r r a t ak e a pho ne c al l and ap pa r e nt l y c e l e br at e i t s ne w s by j um pi ng up a nd do w n wi t h N une z a nd g ivi ng hi m a hi gh f ive . M i nut e s l at e r , s he s aw Tre vi no arrive w i t h a bl u e bag tha tw as l aterfou n d to c o n t ai n seventeen bri cks of
c oc ai ne. Contr er as t es t i f i ed t hatw hen he ar r ived, G uer r a show ed hi m t he bag
o f c o c a in e a n d N u n e z v o u c h e d fo rits q u a lity

. F r o m t h is e v id e n c e th e ju r yco u ld
ea sily in fer t h a t G u erra h a d en tered an ag ree m en t w i th N u n ez , i f n ot also w i th T r e v in o . G u e r r a fa ils t o s h o w th a t t h e e v id e n c e w a s in s u ffic ie n t t o co n v ic t h im of c ons pi r ac y.N o. 07- 20702

7 N u n ez argues that t h e evi den ce s h ow ed onl y t h at he w as present, an d n ot th a t h e w a s a co -con sp i ra tor. H e p oin ts ou t t h a t ag en ts did n ot reco ve r h is f i nger pri nts from ei t hert he bl ue bag ort he pi ec es of paperon w hi c h w hat ap pea re d to be m on et ary cal cul ati on s had been w ri t t en , an d cl ai m s t h e pi eces of pape r c o ul d no t o t he r w i s e pr o ve hi s pa r t i c i pa t i o n i n t he c o ns pi r ac y. N u n ez
n egl e c t s , ho w e ve r , t o m e nt i o n t hatt he r e w as t e s t i m o ny t hatt he c al c ul at ed f i gur e s o n t he pi e c e s o f pape rre pr e s e nt e d t he pr o f i tt hatw o ul d b e m ad e f r o m t he
sa l e a n d h ow i t w ou l d be sp l i t betw ee n G u erra a n dN u n ez . H e a l so n eg l ects to
m en t i on t h at t h ere w as t est i m on y t h at G u erra c al l ed N u n ez t w en t y- t w o t i m es o n O c t o b e r3 1 , t h a to n N o v e m b e r2 N u n e z a n d G u e r r a c e le b r a t e din N u n e z ’s d r iv e w a yo n lym in u te s b e fo r e T r e v in o d e liv e r e dth e co c a in e , a n dth a t N u n e z to ld C o n tr e r a s th e co c a in e “w a s g o o d .” A n d a lth o u g h a s a fa c t it is n o t s u ffic ie n t in
a n d o f i tself, it b ea rs n oti n g th a t a l lo f th ese ev en ts t ra n sp i red at Nu n ez’ s hou se. K n ow l edg e of

an d vol u n t ary pa rt i ci pa t i on i n a conspir acy “ m ay be i n ferred f rom a ‘ coll ection of ci rcu m stan ces.’” Uni t e d St at e s v . Fuc hs , 4 6 7 F

. 3 d88 9 , 90 8 ( 5 th C i r . 2006) (c i t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T h e “c ol l ec t i on o f c i r c um st ance s” her e w as suf f i c i entt o i nferN unez’ s know l edge and vo l u nt ar y par t i c i pat i on and w as t her ef or e s uf f i c i entt o c onvi c tN unez o f c ons pi r ac y. T h e evi den ce w as al so s u f f i ci en tt o convi ctboth G u e rr a an d N u n ez of ai di ng anda be t t i ng po s s e s s i o n. To pr o ve t he cr i m e of ai di ng andabe t t i ng, t he go ve r nm e ntha d t o e s t ab l i sh t hatG ue r r a andN une z : “ ( 1) a s s o c i at e d wi t h t he
c r i m i nalve nt ure ; ( 2) purpo se f ul l y par t i c i pat ed i n t he c r i m e; and ( 3) s oughtby [t h eir] a cti on s for i t t o su ccee d

. ” Un i t ed S t ate s v. Pan d o Fran co , 503 F. 3d 389, 3 9 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ), cer t
. den i ed , — U .S

. — , 1 2 8 S .C t. 1 8 7 4 (2 0 0 8 ). W e h a v e h e ld t hate vi de nc e s upp o r t i ng a c o ns pi r ac y c o nvi c t i on typic al l y s upp o r t s a n a i di ng a n d a b e tt in g c o n v ic tio n . See , e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 553 F. 3d 380, 391 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8) ( quo t i ngUni t e d S t at e s v. Si ngh , 922 F

. 2d 116 9, 117 3 ( 5th C i r. 19 91 ) )

. W e c o nc l ude t he e vi de nc e s upp o r t i ng G ue r r a’ s a nd Nunez ’ s c o nvi c t i o nsN o. 07- 20702

8 o f c o ns pi r ac y e qua l l y s upp o r t s t he i rc o nvi c t i o ns o f a i di ng anda be t t i ng p o s s e s s io n . I V. B oth G u erra an d N u n ez ch a l l en ge the i r sen te n c e s a s u n rea son a b l e. In
o urr e vi e w t o de t e r m i ne w he t he ra se nt e nc e i s re as o nab l e , w e as k w he t he rt he d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e d its d is c r e tio n . See , e . g. , Uni t e d St at e s v . He r r e r a- G ar duno , 519 F

. 3d 526 , 529 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)

. O u r re vi ew i s bi f u rcat ed: W e “ ‘ f

i rstensu re t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtcom m i tted n o si gn i f i can tprocedu ralerr or’” an d “‘ t h en con siderthe su b stan tive rea son a b l en ess o f th e se n ten ce im p ose d

. ’” I d. ( quo t i ng G allv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 52 U

. S. — , 1 28 S. Ct

. 5 86 , 5 97 ( 20 07 ) )

. Bot h Guer r a and N u n e z a lle g e p r o c e d u r a l e r r o r s . See , e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. R od rigu ez , 523 F. 3d 519 , 525 ( 5th C i r. 200 8) ( sentenci n g court procedu ral l y errs w h en , f or i n st an ce, i t fa i l s to pr op erlyc a lc u la te the off en se leve lan dsen ten ci n g ra n ge , fa i l s to
c o ns i de rs e nt e nc i ng fac t o r s a s l i s t e d i n 1 8 U

. S. C. § 3 553 ( a) , t r e at s s e nt e nc i ng gui de l i ne s a s m and at o r y, o ra c c e pt s as a b as i s f o rs e nt e nc e c l e ar l y e r r o ne o us fac t s) (c i t i ng G a ll , 5 5 2 U .S . — , 1 2 8 S .C t. a t 5 9 7 )). G uer r a c l ai m s th e di st r i c tc our tt r eat ed t he s ent enc i ng gui del i nes as
m an da t ory. G u erra, how ever, of fers n o sup port f

or t h i s c l ai m , an d the recor d pl ai n l y ref

u t es i t
. A tG u erra’ s s en t en ci n g h eari n g t h e di st ri ctcourtt ol d G u erra t hati tha d consi d ere dthe sentenci n g gu i del i n es and concl u ded t h at a s en t en ce
u n der t h e g u i del i n es w ou l d be consi st en tw i t h , a n d t ak e i n t o accoun t , t h e fact ors l isted i n 18 U

. S

. C

. § 3553 ( a)

. G u erra does not show t h e di st ri ctcourt pro c edur al l y e r r ed byt r eat i ng t he s ent enc i ng gui del i nes as m andat or y. N u n ez cl a i m s th e d i stri ct co u rt i m p rop erly u sed the coca i n e’ s n et w eigh t,
as o ppo s e d t o i t s “ pur e ” w e i ght , t o det e r m i ne hi s t o t alof fe ns e l e ve lf

o rs e nt e nc i ng pur po s e s . H e a r gue s t he co ur tsho ul d hav e ca l c ul at e d t he w e i ghto f t he c o c ai ne f o r s e n te n cin gp u rp o se s b ym u lti p lyin gth e co ca i n e’ s net w ei gh t , 17. 01 k il ogram s, b y it s p u ri ty, 80 pe rcen t. If the cou rt ha dthu s ca l cu l a ted the coca i n e’ s w eigh t,N o. 07- 20702

9 N unez w oul d h ave bee n l i abl e f oronl y 13. 6 ki l ogr am s of coc ai ne, an d w oul d have q u a l i fi ed f

or a ba se of

fen se l ev el of 32 , f

or w h i ch the sen ten ci n g ra n ge i s 12 1 to 1 5 1 m o n t h s . I n s t e a d , t h e c o u r t a c c e p t e d fo rs e n t e n c in gp u r p o s e s th e c o c a in e ’s netw ei ght , 17. 01 ki l ogr am s, w hi c h ass i gned t o N unez a bas e o f fens e l eve lof

34, fo rw h ic h th e s e n te n c in gra n g e is 1 5 1 to 1 8 8 m o n th s . W e f i nd n o e r r o ri n t he co ur t ’ s use of t he co c ai ne ’ s ne tw e i ghtt o de t e r m i ne N u n ez’ s base of

fen se l evel

. U n der t h e sentenci n g gu i del i n es, a courtdeter m i n es a de fen d a n t’ s ba se o ff en se le v e l in d ru g ca ses byreferen ce to a dr u g q u a n ti ty t abl e . The t a b l e l i s t s c o nt r o l l e d s ub s t a nc e s a nd a s s i g ns b a s e o f fe ns e l e vel s by t he i rw e i ght s . The no t e s t hata c c o m pa ny t he t ab l e e xp l ai n:

Un lessot h erw i se specifi ed, t h e w eigh tof a control led s ubs t anc es e t f

o r t h i n t het ab ler ef

e rs t o t hee nt i r ew e ight of a ny m ixtu re orsu b sta n ce co n ta in ingad ete cta b le a m o u n t of th eco n tr o lle dsu b s ta n c e . If a m ixt u re or sub st anc e c o nt ai n s m ore t h an one control l ed su bstance, th e w eigh t of th e en ti re m i xtu re or su b stan ce is as s i gne d t o t he c o nt r o l l e d s ubs t anc e t hatr e s ul t s i n t he g r e a te ro ffe n s e le v e l. U .S .S .G

. § 2 D 1 .1(c ) n .(A) ( 2 0 0 6 ) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). F or s om e contr ol l ed su b sta n ce s, forin sta n ce , P C P a n dm e th a m p h e ta m in e, t h e t able desi gn ates w ei gh t“ act u al

. ” Th at desi gn ati on ref ers t o “ t h e w ei gh tof th e con troll ed su b stan ce, i tself, con tain ed i n the m i xtu re orsu b stan ce.” Id

. at
n. ( B)

. The t ab l e doe s not , howev e r , de s i gna t e t he w e i ghto f c o c ai ne “ ac t ual

. ” The
w e i ghto f

c o c ai ne f

o rs e nt e nc i ng pur po s e s i s i ns t e ad“ t he e nt i r e w e i ghto f a ny
m i xtu re orsu b stan ce con tain i n g a d etecta b l e a m ou n t of [coca i n e]. ” Id

. a t n .(A). T h e di st ri ct co u rt p roperl y accepted f or s en t en ci n g pu rposes t h e coc ai n e’ s net
w ei gh t , 17. 01 k i l ogram s. N u n ez fai l s t o est abli sh p rocedural error . N ei t h er G u erra nor N u n ez chal l en ge t h e substantive r e ason ableness of t h e i rs e n t e n c e s . We n o t e , h o we v e r , t h a th a v i n gf o un d n o p r o c e d u r a le r r o r , we a ls o fin d n o s u b s ta n tiv e e r r o r . G u e r r a ’ s a n d N u n e z ’ s s e n te n c e s b o th fa ll w ith inN o. 07- 20702

10 th e p r o p e r ly -c a lc u la te d g u id e lin e s ra n g e a n da r e , th e r e fo r e , p r e s u m p tiv e ly
r e a s o n a b le

. S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. G om ez- Herrera , 523 F

. 3d 554 , 558 ( 5th C i r. 2008) (c i t i ng R i t a v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 5 1 U .S

. — , 1 2 7 S .C t. 2 4 5 6 , 2 4 6 2 (20 0 7 )). Ther e w as no a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. V. N unez al so c l ai m s t hatathi s ar r ai gnm ent hear i ng t he m agi st r at e j udge i n corre ctl y su m m a ri ze d the ch a rg es a ga i n st h i m an dthe refore h i s n ot-gu i l ty p le a w a s n o tk n o w in ga n d v o lu n t a r y . W e f in dn o e r r o rin th e m a g is t r a t e ju d g e ’s d elive ryof th e ch a rg es a t N u n ez ’ s ar ra i gn m en t. Adef endanthas a r i ghtt o know t he c harge s agai nsthi m a n d t o have
a d e q u a te in fo r m a tio n fr o m w h ic h to p r e p a r e h is d e fe n s e . See , e . g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v . C o rre a-V

entura , 6 F. 3d 1070, 1073 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) (c i t i ng Uni t e d St a t e s v. R ogers , 4 6 9 F .2d 131 7, 131 8 ( 5th C i r. 197 2) )

. A n arrai gn m en tprot ect s t h ose
r ig h ts
. S ee F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 10 (defen da n tshallbe i n f orm e d o f “th e substance
o f t he c har ge ” a nd c al l e d o n t o pl e adt he r e t o )

. A c o nvi c t i o n wi l lno tb e v ac at e d, h ow ever, f

or l ack of

f orm ala rrai gn m en tp roceedi n gs, absen tpossibl e prej u di ce. Corre a-V

entura , 6 F. 3d at1073. T h e i n d i c t me n ti n t h i s c a s e c h a r g e d Gu e r r a , Nu n e z , a n d T r e v i n o wi t h t wo c o unt s , o ne f

o rco ns pi r ac y andt he ot he rfo rpos s e s s i o n. Att he a r r ai gnm e nt , t he
m ag i s t r at e j udg e c o nf i r m e d t hat t he de fe nda nt s ’ at t o r ne ys had “ di s c us s e d t he accusati on s i n the i n di ct m en tw i t h [t h ei r] cl i en t s. ” Th e m agis t rat e j u dg e asked th e d e fend an t s w h et h er t h ey h ad di scussed t h e charges w i t h t h ei r at t orneys; t h ey an sw ered “ yes. ” W e ha ve h el d that w h e re a j u dg e conf i rm s t h at defen se coun selha s i n f

orm ed a d efen da n tof t h e charges aga i n sthi m , no p rej u di ce resul t s f

rom t h e fai l u re of

the j u dg e to p ersonal l y i n f orm the defenda n tof t h ose c h a r g e s . Un it e dS ta tes v. G ro te , 632 F

. 2d 387 , 389 ( 5th C i r. 198 0) ( “W e do n ot b e l i e v e t ha t a ny p r ej ud i c e ha s r e s ul t e d f r o m t he fa i l ur e o f t he t r i a lj udge per so nal l y t o i nf

or m the def

endantof

the c harge s agai nsth i m . The t r i alj udgeN o. 07- 20702

4 COUNTTWO

Possession with the Intentto Distribute (C ocaine) On orab out 2 November20 06 . . . d efendants herein, aiding , assisting , and abettin g eachother and others, knownan d unknown to the Grand Jury, did unl awfully, knowingly, an d inte nt ionally possess withthe intent todistribute acontrolled sub st ance . Thisviolationinvolved5kilo gra ms or m oreof a mixture and substance cont aining adetect ab leam ountof cocaine , a S chedule IIcontrolled substance. Inviol ation of 2 1 U .S. C. § § 841(a)(1) and 841 (b)(1)(A )(ii) and 18 U.S.C. § 2

. 11 as si gned t hatr es ponsibi l i t y t o appoi nt ed co unsel , and he s at i sf i ed hi m se l f

t hat th a t re spo nsibi l i t y had be en di sc harge d bef or e c al l i ng upon t he def endantto p lea d .”)

. N eve r t hel es s, i n addi t i on t o c onf i r m i ng t hatt he def

enda nt s’at t or neys had di scussed t h e charges w i t h theircl i en t s, the m agis t rat e j u dg e a l so s u m m ari zed both coun t s f

or t h e defen da n t s: Eac h o f y o u ar e ac c us e d i n C o untO ne o f t he i ndi c t m e nt t hata l l e ge s t haty o u c o ns pi r e d o rm ad e a n a gr e e m e nt t o po ss es s w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e c oc ai ne, f ive ki l o gr am s orm o r e , on orabo utO c t o be r31s t , 200 6, a nd c o n tin u in gth r o u g h N o v e m b e r th e 2 n d o f 2 0 0 6
. T h a t is C ountO ne o f

t he i ndi c t m ent
. Coun tTw o a l l eg es t hat you each possessed w i t h i n t en t t o di st ribu t e cocai n e, f ive or m ore ki l ogram s of coc ai n e. N une z c l ai m s t hatt he m ag i s t r at e j udg e i nc o r r e c t l y t o l d t he m t hatc o unt tw o ch a r g e d th e m w ith p o s s e s s io n , a n d c o m p la in s th a t t h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e d id
no t t e l l t he m t hatt he y hadb e e n c har ge d wi t h a i di ng anda be t t i ng po s s e s s i o n. T h e s e a lle g e d e r r o r s a r e w ith o u t m e r it. T h e m a g is tr a te ju d g e co r r e c tly
sum m ari zed coun tt w o of t h e i n di ct m en t , w h i ch plai n l y t i t l ed i t sel f “ P osses si on
w i th the In ten t t o D i strib u te ( C oca i n e)” a n dplain l y ch a rg ed the de fen d a n ts w i th possessi on un der 21 U

. S

. C

. §§ 841(a) ( 1) & 8 41(b) ( 1) (A) (i i)

. T h at c ou n tt w o al so 4 cha rged the defenda n tw i t h a i di n g an d abett i n g possessi on u n der 18 U

. S

. C

. § 2N o. 07- 20702

12 does n otrender the m agis t rat e j u dg e’ s s u m m ary of coun tt w o i n ad equ ate, w h ere t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e very cor rect l y convey ed t o t h e defenda n t s “ t h e substance of t h e charge. ” T h ere w as n o error i n t h e defen da n t s’arrai gn m en tproceedi n gs. V I. F i n a l l y, N u n ez cl a i m s th a t he w a s ch a rg ed n ot w i th po sse ssion , bu t w i th ai di n g an d ab et t i n g possessi on , an d t h at t h e di st ri ct court t h eref ore erred w h en i ti ns t r uc t e d t he j ur y t hat N une z ha d b e e n c har ge d wi t h po s s e s s i o n. Thi s i s s ue i s w i t h ou tm eri t
. A s p re v iousl y st ated, t h e i n di ct m en tvery pl ai n l y cha rged N u n e z w ith p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t t o d is tr ib u te co c a in e . M o r e o ve r , w e note that i n i t s pr e l i m i nar y i ns t r uc t i o ns t o t he j ur y, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tr e c i t e d t he elem ent s o f c o ns pi r ac y, po s s e s s i o n, a nd a i di ng and abett i n g possessi on . I n i t s j u ry ch arge pri or to deliberati on s, t h e di st ri ctcourt
c ar e f ul l y e xp l ai ne d t h e elem e nt s o f c o ns pi r ac y, po s s e s s i o n, a nd a i di ng and
a b etti n g p oss ess i on . T h e instru ct i ons w ere con sist en t w i th the ch a rg es in co u n ts
one and t w o o f

t he i ndi c t m ent
. The j udgm enti ndi c at es t hatN unez w as con victed of con sp i ra cyan d aidin g a n dab etti n g p oss ess i on w i th i n ten t t o di st r ibut e. C ont r ar y t o hi s as se r t i on o t her w i se , N unez w as notc onvi c t ed o f an
u n i n di ct ed cri m e. V II. F or t h e f

oregoi n g reasons, t h e convi ct i on s and sentences areA F FIRM E D

.