IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10101

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

WINFRED MORGAN TRAMMEL,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-151-22

Before BARKSDALE, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to a jury trial, Winfred Morgan Trammel was convicted of one 

count of conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, 50 grams or more of a 

substance containing methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him, 

inter alia, within the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range to 262 months in 

prison. Trammel challenges both his conviction and sentence. 

 

* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. 

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10101 Document: 00513779684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
No. 16-10101

2

Regarding his conviction, he asserts, on two bases, that the evidence was 

insufficient to support his conviction. For the following reasons, a rational 

juror could have found him guilty. 

Although Trammel maintains he was merely in a buyer-seller 

relationship with his purported co-conspirators, the evidence at trial 

established he was a repeat customer of relatively large quantities of 

methamphetamine, which indicates participation in a conspiracy. See United 

States v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 336 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, Trammel was 

fronted drugs by other individuals named in the indictment, demonstrating a 

strong level of trust and a mutually dependent relationship. See United States 

v. Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 860 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Trammel also contends the evidence was insufficient because the 

Government proved the existence of a conspiracy different from the one alleged 

in the indictment. Contrary to his assertions, the evidence at trial proved the 

allegations in the indictment with respect to the time period, the identity of 

the participants, the nature and scope of the offense, and the location of the 

events taking place within the conspiracy. See United States v. Thomas, 12 

F.3d 1350, 1357 (5th Cir. 1994).

In addition, Trammel challenges his conviction by claiming the court 

erred in admitting text messages sent to him by a co-conspirator. He 

maintains the messages constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence and that 

their introduction violated the Confrontation Clause because the coconspirator did not testify. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011). The 

messages fall within an exception to the hearsay rule because they were 

statements made “during and in furtherance of the conspiracy” by one of 

Trammel’s co-conspirators. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); see United States v. 

 Case: 16-10101 Document: 00513779684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/01/2016
No. 16-10101

3

Snyder, 930 F.2d 1090, 1095 (5th Cir. 1991). For similar reasons, the 

introduction of the evidence does not run afoul of the Confrontation Clause, as 

“[s]tatements made between co-conspirators in furtherance of a conspiracy are 

not testimonial”. United States v. Alaniz, 726 F.3d 586, 607 (5th Cir. 2013) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Regarding his sentence, Trammel claims the court erred by imposing a 

two-level enhancement, pursuant to Guideline § 3C1.1, for obstruction of 

justice. Although post-Booker, the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only, 

the district court must avoid significant procedural error, such as improperly 

calculating the Guidelines sentencing range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 48–51 (2007). If no such procedural error exists, a properly preserved 

objection to an ultimate sentence is reviewed for substantive reasonableness 

under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. at 51; United States v. DelgadoMartinez, 564 F.3d 750, 751–53 (2009). In that respect, for issues preserved in 

district court, its application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo; its factual 

findings, only for clear error. E.g., United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 

F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir. 2008).

The court imposed the enhancement after finding Trammel had willfully 

provided false statements at his suppression hearing, regarding the timing of 

the warnings provided in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Trammel 

presented no evidence to counter the presentence investigation report’s 

enhancement recommendation. Because the “district court’s finding is 

plausible in light of the record as a whole”, there is no clear error. CisnerosGutierrez, 517 F.3d at 764 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-10101 Document: 00513779684 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/01/2016