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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 14 88

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

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el le e

v.

Dan dr ae J on es ,

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

17 , 20 13 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 21 , 20 13 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re BYE an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es , and KOPF, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ KOPF, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

A jury co nv ic te d Dan dr ae Jo ne s of co ns p i r acy to di st rib ut e fiv e ki lo gr am s or

m or e of co cai ne , in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), (b )(1 )(A), a n d 8 4 6

. On

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka , si tt in g b y

de si gn at io n.ap pe al

, Jo ne s argu es th e di st ric t co ur t erre d when it de ni ed hi s m ot io n for judg m en t 2
of acq ui tt al

, an d whe n it ap pl ie d a two -le ve l en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce. W e aff irm th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d eci si on s ch al le ng ed on ap pe al

.

I. Suff

ic ie ncy of E vi denc e

Jo ne s arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it de ni ed 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 pr od uc ed in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce. W e rev ie w “ th e

su ffi ci en cy of th e ev id en ce de no vo , vi ewin g th e ev id en ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le

to th e go ve rn m en t, wit h al l reas on ab le in fere nc es an d cred ib il it y de te rm in at io ns m ad e in su pp or t o f th e jury’ s v erd ic t.” Uni te d S ta te s v. K el ly , 4 36 F.3 d 99 2, 99 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ). A ve rd ic t wil l be ov ert ur ne d “ on ly if no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un 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. Gra y , 36 9 F.3 d 10 24
, 10 28 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 ). To pr ov e a de fen da nt was in vo lv ed in a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e

co cai ne , th e go ve rn m en t m us t sh ow (1) th ere was a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e co cai ne ; (2 ) th e d efen da nt kn ew of th e co ns pi racy; an d (3 ) th e de fen da nt in te nt io na ll y joi ne d
th e co ns pi racy. Uni te d S ta te s v. J imi ne z , 48 7 F .3d 11 40 , 11 46 (8t h C ir. 2 00 7)

.

A reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d Jo ne s gu il ty of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e fiv e ki lo gr a ms o r mo r e of co cai ne

. Alejan dr o Co rred or te st ifi ed at Jo ne s’s tri al th at
Co rred or was th e he ad of a la rg e co cai ne an d m ari juan a co ns pi racy th at op erat ed in
th e gr eat er Kan sa s Ci ty m et ro po li ta n area

. Co rred or de sc rib ed th e co ns pi racy in gr eat
de ta il

, an d id en ti fie d Jo ne s as on e of hi s m ai n dr ug di st rib ut or s. Co rre d o r t e s t i fie d
ab ou t th e am ou nt of co cai ne he rece iv ed fro m h i s s u pp li ers , an d th e am ou nt he

, in

tu rn , di st rib ut ed to Jo ne s. In ad di ti on , Co rred or te st ifi ed ab ou t a dr ug le dg er reco ve red
fro m hi s ho m e th e da y he was arre st ed

. Acco rd in g to Co rred or , t h i s l e dg er sh owe d
th at Jo ne s o wed Co rred or $1 35 ,00 0.0 0 fo r co cai ne th at ha d b een fro nt ed to hi m

.

The Hon or ab le Nan et te Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es D ist ri ct Judg e fo r the W es tern 2 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i. -2

-Two co op erat in g wit ne ss es co r r o bo rat ed Co rred or ’s te st im on y

. One of th es e

wit ne ss es te st ifi ed th at he so ld co cai ne fo r Jo ne s, tha t he saw Jo ne s han dl in g a lo t of
dr ug s, an d th at Jo ne s was Co rred or ’s “ rig ht -h an d m an .” The ot he r te st ifi ed th at sh e ob se rv ed Jo ne s, on m

ul ti pl e oc cas io ns , br in g m on ey to Co rred or fo r pa y m en t of dr ug de bt s.

The te st im on y by t h es e wit ne ss es de m on st rat ed th ere was a dr ug co ns pi racy,

an d Jo ne s was a kn owi ng pa rti ci pa nt

. Jo ne s att ack s th e cred ib il it y of th e wit ne ss es

. Howev er, “ [t]he jury ha s th e res po ns ib il it y of res ol vi ng co nf li ct s or co nt rad ic ti on s in

te st im on y , an d [th e co ur t] res ol ve [s ] an y cred ib il it y is su es in fav or of th e ve rd ic t.”
Uni te d St at es v. Jo hn so n , 68 8 F.3 d 49 4, 50 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ali

, 61 6 F.3 d 74 5, 75 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). Afte r care fu ll y r e v i e w i n g th e reco rd an d
dr awin g al l reas on ab le in fere nc es in fav or of th e jury’ s ve rd ic t, we affi rm th e di st ric t

co ur t’s d en ia l o f Jo ne s’s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

II

. Obs truc tio n o f Ju st ic e

Jo ne s arg ue s t h e di st ric t co ur t erre d whe n it ap pl ie d an ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce

en ha nc em en t ba se d on th e di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at Jo ne s in te nt io na ll y ga ve fal se te st im on y

. Jo ne s te st ifi ed at tri al th at he ha d no in vo lv em en t in dr ug tra ffi ck in g wit h t he Co rred or org an iz at io n.

“ A de fen da nt is su bjec t to an en ha nc em en t un de r U.S.S.G. § 3C 1.1 if he te st ifi es fal se ly un de r oa th in reg ard to a m at eri al m at te r an d do es so wil lfu ll y rat he r th an ou t
of co nf us io n or m is ta ke .” Uni te d St at es v. Mab ie
, 66 3 F.3 d 32 2, 33 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Men do za -Go nz al ez , 36 3 F .3d 78 8, 79 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )).

“ W e gi ve gr eat d e f

eren ce to a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to im po se an ob st ru ct io n of j ust ic e en ha

nc em en t, re ve rs ing onl y whe n th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s ar e ins uf fi ci en t. ”
Uni te d St at es v. Y

ar ri ng to n , 63 4 F.3 d 44 0, 45 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es

v. Cu nn in gh am , 59 3 F.3 d 72 6, 7 3 0 ( 8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). “ A di st ric t co ur t m us t fin d th e
pr ed ic at e fact s su pp or ti ng su ch an en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce by a

-3

-pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce.” Uni te d St at es v. Alva ra do , 6 15 F

. 3d 91 6, 92 2 (8 th

Ci r. 20 10 ). A di st ric t co ur t m ay no t ap pl y th is ad jus tm en t “ si m

pl y be cau s e a de fen da nt te st ifi es on hi s own be ha lf an d th e jury di sb el ie ve s hi m .” Uni te d St at es v. Flo re s , 36 2 F.3 d 10 30
, 1 0 3 7 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 04 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n , 31 8 F .3d 84 5, 8 61 (8t h C ir. 2 00 3) ).

Jo ne s arg ue s th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d Jo ne s ob st ru ct ed jus ti ce ba se d so le ly on th e jury fin di ng hi m gu il ty. W e reject Jo ne s’s arg um en t. The di st ric t co ur t pr es id ed ov er th e tri al

, li st en ed to th e ev id en ce, an d li st en ed to Jo ne s ’s t e st im on y

. It ap pl ie d th e

en ha nc em en t fo r ob st ru ct io n of jus ti ce, st at in g, “ I was at th e tri al

. . . I be li ev e th at in
fact th e de fen da nt is gu il ty of th e cri m e ch arg ed an d th at in fact he di d no t te ll th e tru th
whe n he to ok th e st an d i n h i s own be ha lf.” The di st ric t co ur t’s de te rm in at io n th at
Jo ne s was un tru th fu l “ m

us t b e a c c e p t ed un le ss cl earl y erro ne ou s.” Uni te d St at es v. Moo re , 62 4 F.3 d 87 5, 87 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Flo re s , 95 9 F.2 d
83 , 87 (8t h C ir. 1 99 2) ). The d is tri ct co ur t’s fi nd in g was no t cl earl y erro ne ou s.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-4

-