F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Nov ember 15, 20 04 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK

Honora ble J ames H. H an co ck , United States District J udg e for the Northe rn District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

desig nation. [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1472 3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 2- 21 05 7 C R-FAM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Plaintiff-Appellee, ve rs us JAHZIEL PINEIRO, D ef en dant- Appe llant.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (N ove m be r 15, 200 4) (A s A m en de d Jan ua ry7, 200 5) Before HU LL and MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg es, and HA NCO CK , D istrict Judg e.

* MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg e:2

T he opi nio n is sue d onN ove m be r 15, 200 4 is he re by

c or re ct ed a nd subs tit ute d w iththe f

oll ow ing : Jahz ie l P ine ir o a

ppe al s hi s c onvi ct ion s, a ri sin g f ro m aj ur y ve rd ic t, f or one count of consp iracy

to m anufacture m arij uana plants, in violatio n of 21 U. S. C. §§ 8 41( a) (1 ), ( b) (1 )( B) (v ii) , 846 ; on e co unt of m ai nta ini ng a

pla ce f or the pur pose of m anuf ac tur ing m ar ij uana , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. § 85 6 and 1 8 U . S. C. § 2; an d tw o c ount s of

pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar

m a nd am m uni tio n by

ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in violatio n of 18 U. S. C. §§ 92 2(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Pineiro ar gues that the dis trict court err ed by

deny ing hi s pre-trial m otion to supp ress, and that the evidence was i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s up p o rth i s dr

u g - r e l a t e dc o n v i c t i o n s . We a f f i rm. I. T he r el ev an t f

ac ts and p ro ce dur al his tor y a re the se . O n Apr il 25, 200 3, by s up e r s e d i n g i n d i c t men t , P i n e i r o wa s c h ar g e dwi t h : b e g i n n i n g i n o r ab o u tF e b r

u a ry 2002 a nd c ont inu ing thr oughon o r ab out D ec em be r 13, 200 2, c onsp ir ing to m anufacture 100 or m ore m arij uana plants, in violatio n of 21 U. S. C. §§ 84 1(a)( 1), (b )( 1) (B )( vii ), 846 ( Co unt I ); m anuf

ac tur ing 100 or

m or e m ar ij uanaplants , in violatio n of 21 U. S. C. §§ 84 1(a)( 1), ( b)(1)(B )(vii) (C ount II) ; m aintaining a place fo r the pur

pose of m anuf ac tur ing m ar ij uana , in vio la tio n of 21 U . S. C. § 85 6( a) (1 ) an d 18 U . S. C. § 2 (C ount I II ); pos se ssi on o f a fi re ar m in furthe ranc e of

adr ugMiranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 458-71, 86 S.Ct . 1602, 1619-26, 16 L .Ed.2d 694 (1966). 1 3 tr af fi ck ing of fe nse , in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. § 92 4( c) (1 )( A )( i) ( Co unt I V ); poss es sio n of

af ir earm by ac onvi ct ed

f el on, in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)( 2) (Count V) ; and poss ession o f am m uniti on bya convicted fe lon , in vio la tio n of

18 U . S. C. §§ 922( g) (1 ), 924 (a )( 2) ( Co unt V I) . T he ind ic tm en t a lso inc lud ed

af or fe iture c ount . Pr ior to tr ia l, P ine ir o m ove d to sup pr es s e vid en ce se iz ed a nd s ta te m en ts m ad e in c onne ct ionw ithaw ar rantl es s se ar chof

his pr ope rty , a rg uin g th at : the pol ic e la ck ed

pr oba ble c au se to se ar chhis hom e w ith out aw ar rant; a ny c onse nt h e ga ve w as inv oluntary ; the se ar che xc ee de d th e sc ope of suc h c onse nt; he w as not gi ve n M ira nd a warn in gs ; an d h is st at em en ts were co erce d. 1 A t an e vid en tiary

he ar ing on P ine ir o’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s, the m ag istrate j udge cons idered the following testim ony . FBI Special A gent Martin Pettit stated that, in O ct obe r 2002 , he r ec ei ve d in fo rm at ionabout am ar ij uana -g ro w ing ope ratio n a t m

ult ipl e loc at ion s inMi am i, F lor ida . H is s ubse que nt i nve sti ga tio n le d to sur ve ill an ce of

ahou se loc at ed

a t 16 001 S. W . 98th A ve nue ( “ 1600 1 Ho u s e” ). Du ri n g s u rv ei l l an ce at th i s l o ca t i o n , Ag en tPe t t i to b s er v ed Pi n ei ro ’s bla ck Ch ev y T ah oe spo rt s ut ili ty

ve hic le ( “ SU V ”) , w hic h ha d w hit e le tte ri ng o n the sid e, park ed

out sid e. H e subs eque ntl y obt ai ne d aw ar

rant t o se ar chthe 160 01We have n o o cc as i on to look at the admissibili ty of Va zquez’s st atement, e ither at the 2 su pp re ssi on he ari ngor

at th e su bs e qu e nt t

ri a l, b e c a us e no e rr or

ha s b e e n r a ise d o n a

pp e a l. 4 H ouse . D ur ing his se ar chon D ec em be r 12, 200 2, P ettit

dis co ve re d af

ull y func tio na l m ar ij uanagr owsit e on the pr em ise s. A lso a t the 160 01 H ouse , the agents encount ered L azar o Vaz quez, who denied k nowing Pineiro and who wa s 2 subs equently

arr ested. I n the course of his invest igation of the 16001 House, Pe tti t l earn ed

that tw o othe r hom es w er e as soc iate d w iththi s lo catio n. B as ed on thi s in fo rm at ion , f

our spe ci al a ge nts w en t t o th e ne xt h ouse a sso ci at ed w iththe 1600 1 House, this one at 25768 S. W . 123rd Court (“ 2576 8 House”), wher e they en co unt er ed

P ine ir o. Pr ior to obt ai nin g P ine ir o’ s c onse nt t o se ar chthe 257 68 H ouse , the a ge nts spok e w ithP ine ir o’ s pare nts and b ro the r, a ll of w hom li ve d di re ct ly

a cr oss the street fr om

the 2576 8 House. Af

ter Spec ial Agent Pe ttit told the fam ily he w ished to speak with Pineiro, P ineiro’ s brother phon ed him and, about 45 m inutes later, Pineiro arr ived in a van. T he agents approached the van and ident ified the m se lve s. T he y

w er e ar m ed , but the ir w ea pons w er e co nc ea le d. T he y tol d Pineiro they

wanted to lo ok aroundthe 2576 8 House. Pineiro agree d, but stated he want edto sec ur e h is do g b efo re t he ag en ts en te redth e h ou se .5

A ft er P ine ir o se cure d th e dog in the gara ge , he w al ke d w iththe a ge nts through the house. Specia l Agent Pe ttit testified that Pineiro never indicated that he did not w an t the a ge nts to en te r his hou se , nor did he li m it the sc ope of

the ir se ar ch . P ine ir o r ef

use d to sig n ac onse nt- to- se ar chf orm , but ve rb al ly c onse nte d to the se ar ch . A cc or din g to A ge nt P ettit , P ine ir o m ove d th e dog fr om the gara ge to perm it agents to search the garage. D uring the search of the prem ises, Spec ial Age nt Pet ti t o bs erv eda pa rti al ly dis m an tl edgro w roo m in on e o f th e b ed ro om s, a m ar ij uanaplant i n th e ba cky ar d, a nd m ar ij uanale av es on the f loo r thr ough out

the hous e. T he other agents found d rug paraphernalia in the laundry room and m ore m ar ij uanale av es and c lip pin gs c onc ea le d ingarb ag e ba gs i n th e gara ge . I n th e hous e, spe ci fi ca lly , the a ge nts dis co ve re d c onstru ct ionde br is, buc ke ts, pottin g soi l, c lip pin g sc iss or s, le af f ra gm en ts o f sus pe ct ed

m ar ij uana , aba lla st o r tr an sf orm er use d to pow er

gr owli ght s, asc al e an d tr ay use d f or w ei ghi ng dru gs, an d athr ee -s ide d bo x or

“ hood ” use d f

or gr ow ing m ar ij uana . I n th e kit ch en , ag en ts f ound apic tur e of

P ine ir o st an din g a lon gsi de tr ay s of gr ow ing m ar ij uana plants and h old ing a“ bong ”
-- ade vic e use d to sm oke m ar ij uana . F ina lly , in the gara ge , the a ge nts a lso f

ound P V C p ipe s c om

m onl y use d a s ir

ri ga tio n tu

be s in hy dr opon ic m ar ij uanagr owope ratio ns.6

Agent Pe ttit read Pineiro his Miranda rights and questi oned him . Pineiro sig ne d aMi randa -r igh ts w ai ve r fo rm a nd i nf orm ed P ettit he ha d m ove d in to the hous e on N ove m

be r 16, 200 2, and a dm itt ed that the plants a nd dru gs i n th e hous e be lon ge d to him . Whe n P ettit inf orm ed P ine ir o of

the se ar cha t the 160 01 H ouse on the pr ior

day , P ine ir o e xpl ai ne d th at the 160 01 H ouse be lon ge d to his c ousi n (V azquez). Pineiro, who described him self to Agent Pe ttit as a “pot-head,” ini tia lly de nie d havin g any

w ea pons a nd c la im ed

the m ar ij uanaw as not

his , but that i t ha d be enin the hou se w he n he m ove d in . H e la te r re cante d and t old P ettit he ha d c onstru ct ed

the apparatus in the dis m an tle d gr owr oom to cu lti va te m arij uana. H e also later dire cted agents to a gun case. The a gents then ask ed Pi ne ir o f or pe rm iss ionto se ar chhis van and P ine ir o c onse nte d, a ft er w hic h th e ag en ts fou nd m or e m ari

juan a le av es an d p la nt in g m at eri al s i n t he va n. In suppo rt of his m otion to supp ress, Pineiro testified he had been living at the 257 68 H ouse f

or onl y tw o w ee ks whe n he w as a rr es te d. H e state d th at a ge nts as ke d t o “ lo okaro un d,” bu t d idno t i nd ic at e th atth ey wis he d t o s earc h h is ho m e. Ac cording to Pineiro, he thoug ht the agents would o nly wa lk throug h his ho use, but w oul d no t op enthi ngs an d lo ok e ve ry w he re . P ine ir o a lso c la im ed he w as not ad vi se d o f hi s M ira nd a ri gh ts un ti l af te r he was q ue st io ne d a nd arre st ed .7

The m agistrate j udge recom m ended deny ing th e m otion to supp ress. Based on the testim ony

at the evidentiary

hearing, the m agistrate j udge conclud ed that Pi ne ir o gave c onse nt t o se ar chand tha t hi s c onse nt w as vol unt ar y . T he m ag istrate j udge obs er

ve d th at the re w as no e vid en ce the a ge nts use d any f or ce or thr eats t o se cure the c onse nt. T he m ag istrate j udge f urthe r fo und that l awe nf or ce m en t officer s advised Pineiro of his righ ts, but wer e not required to inform him he had the right to refuse consent. O ver Pineiro’ s objections, the district court adopted the r ec om m en da tio n and d en ie d th e m oti on t o su ppr es s. At tria l, S pecial A gent Pettit presented testim ony that wa s, in all m aterial res pe ct s, co ns is te nt wit h t he tes ti m on y he pro vi de d a t t he supp res si on he ari ng . He de sc ri be d f

or the j ur y the spe ci al a ge nts ’ r ec ove ry of the f oll ow ing e vid en ce a t the 1600 1 H ouse , the f

ull y f unc tio na l gr owhou se w he re P ine ir o’ s c ousi n and c oco nspi rator , V az que z, w as arr es te d: 1 31 m ar ij uanaplants in gr ow ing tr ay s; fl uor es ce nt l igh t f

ixt ur es ( co m m onl y use d inm ar ij uanagr owhou se s f or it s a bil ity to p ro vid e a br oa d sp ec tr um of li ght but alowle ve l of

he at ); a nd m

ult ipl e str ips of ro ckwoo l (a so il su bs ti tu te co m m on ly use d i n h y dr op on ic m ari juan a g ro w ho us es ). The next day , when the agents cond ucted a sear ch of the 25768 House, they dis co ve re d th e fo llo w ing e vid en ce ind ic at ing , in Pe tti t’ s op ini on, that the hou se w as adis m an tle d gr owhou se : a hig h- pr es sur e cy lin de r an d sa fe ty c ap ( use d to8

sto re c ar bon dio xid e dur ing the gr owpr oc es s) ; bu ck et s and p ott ing soi l; cl ipp ing sc iss or s; P V C p ipe s ( co m m onl y e m plo y ed a s ir ri ga tio n tu

bin g f or hy dr opon ic
m arij uana cultivation ); leaf fra gm ents of m arij uana; a ballast or transform er ( used to power “ grow lights”); a scale and tray (for we ighin g drugs); a foil-backed ins ulatio n bo ar d; and s tr ips of r oc kw ool . P ettit

a lso dis co ve re d athr ee -s ide d bo x, w hic h w as ahom e- m ad e “ hood , ” use d to gr owm ar ij uana . I n on e of the be dr oom s, Pettit testified that construction debris littered the floor and that the door had been re m ove d f

ro m the hin ge s. A n a ir -c ondi tio nin g un it w as sittin g onthe f loo r an d a co nta ine r of

pottin g so il, and s oil it se lf , w er e obse rv ed

on the f loo r of thi s bedroom . Af

ter Pineir o also consent ed to a searc h of his van parked ou tside, agents foundsim ilar m aterials inside. Pe tti t the n de sc ri be d th e thi rd hou se se ar ch ed , thi s on e on D ec em be r 13, 2002 right after com

pletion of the sear ch at the 25768 House. T he third hou se wa s located at 20535 Marlin Road (“ Marlin Road H ouse”) and owned by Va zquez, w ho h ad be enarr es te d inc onne ct ionw iththe se ar chof the 160 01 H ouse on the pr ev iou s day . A t this hou se , the a ge nts f ound a nothe r ac tiv e gr owsit e an d reco ve red19 4 m ari

juan a p la nt s. Pe tti t, w ho h ad

inv es tig at ed

ove r 20 d ism an tle d or

f ull y f unc tio na l gr ow hous es dur ing his c ar ee r, opi ne d th at the ope ratio ns at the Marl in R oa d H ouse9

w er e “ ve ry

sim ilar to” the ope ratio ns at the 160 01 H ouse . Mo re spe ci fi ca lly , P ettit described the following equip m ent -- sim ilar to m aterials he had seen j ust the day be fo re a t bo th the 160 01 H ouse a nd the 257 68 H ouse : the sam e sty le a nd ty pe of fl uor es ce nt l igh tbu lbs use d inthe ope ratio n of hy dr opon ic gr owhou se s; b loc ks o f rockwool; rows of ballasts; and a foil-bac ked insu lation bo ard. In the Mar lin Road H ouse , in one of

the r oom s th at

ha d be ene qui ppe d f

or hy dr opon ic gr ow ing , P ettit saw , a s he ha d a lso se enin the 257 68 H ouse , a n e xtr a ai r co ndi tio nin g un it, w hic h, he explained, served to cool the room and balance the higher tem perature given out bythe fluorescent lightin g. N otably , during the searc h of the Marlin Road House, Pettit observed that Pineiro’ s phon e num ber appear ed twice on the “ caller i.d. ” unit. T hese calls took place on Dece m ber 4 and 5, 2002 (during th e char ged tim e pe ri od f

or the c onsp ir ac y ), w hic h w as w ith in the w ee k pr ior to Pi ne ir o’ s and Vazq ue z’s arre st s. Ina ddi tio n to P ettit ’ s te sti m ony , the gov er nm en t pr es en te d te sti m ony f ro m neighb ors to two of the houses (the Marlin Road and 2576 8 Houses). Lance Raff ord testified that his m other lived across the street fr om the Marlin Road H ouse and tha t he ha d se enabla ck S U V w ithw hit e le tte ri ng at the Marl in H ouse on thr ee or

f our oc ca sio ns d

ur ing 200 2. T ha t sam e y ear, A rt av ius W ill iam s, w ho10

liv ed in the hou se dir ec tly

be hin d th e 2576 8 H ouse not ic ed that br igh t l igh ts rem ai ne d o n a t al l t im es of t he da y an d n ig ht at t ha t h ou se . Ro s a M i l l o n -R o qu e, th e o wn ero f t h e 1 6 0 0 1 Ho u s e a n d , t h u s , b o t h Pi n ei ro ’s and Vaz quez’ s landlord d uring the relevant tim e period, te stified that she rented the hou se f

or aone -y ear te rm

to Pi ne ir o, start ing in Fe br uary 200 2. O n or

about Fe br uary 13, 200 2, P ine ir o f

ill ed out ale as e ap pli catio n, li sti ng the 257 68 H ouse as his c ur re nt a ddr es s. A cc or din g to Mi llo n- Ro que , w he n he appl ie d to r en t the hous e, Pineiro asked how often she planned to vis it the property , and she inform ed him that she never visited her rented properties. She noted, howe ver, that when she la te r de ci de d to r ef

inanc e the pr ope rty

a nd the appr ai se r w ish ed to vis it the hous e, P ine ir o to ld h er

that he did

not w an t so m eo ne c om ing to the hou se w he n he was no t at ho m e. On No ve m be r 20 , 20 02 (du rin g t he pe rio d o f th e co ns pi racy), Pi ne ir o ph one d M ill on- Ro que and i ndi cate d he w an te d to br eak th e le as e. Mi llo nRoque replied that she would try to find anoth er r enter im m ediately . Later that sam e day , P ineiro called Millon-Roque and saidhe had found a friend who w anted to ren t t he ho us e an d h adth e m on ey to m ak e th e th ree r eq ui redpa ym en ts . He indicated that thi s friend, who, as it turned out, was V asquez, “ knows the hou se.” Si x day s late r, V as que z m ove d in to the r es ide nc e af te r sig nin g ane wle as e, the term of w hich includ ed the two-m onth period rem aining o n the lease Pineiro had11

br oke n. D ur ing Mi llo n- Ro que ’ s te sti m ony , the gov er nm en t i ntr oduc ed

le as e doc um en ts a sso ci at ed

w ithV az que z’ s r en ta l of the 160 01 H ouse , inc lud ing , no tabl y , hi s l eas e ap pl ic at io n o n wh ic h h e li st edPin ei ro as a refe ren ce. A t the e nd o f the gov er

nm en t’ s c as e- in- ch ie f, P ine ir o m ove d f or j udgm en t of a cquitta l ona ll co unt s. T he c ourt de nie d th e m oti on a s to Co unt s I , I II , V , a nd V I, but gr an te d th e m oti on o n C ount s I I (m anuf ac tur ing 100 or

m or e m ar ij uana plants ) an d I V ( poss es sio n of af ir earm in furthe ranc e of

adr ug tra ff ic kin g offense). Inhis de fe nse , P ine ir o c al le d th re e w itn es se s. F ir st, his f athe r, H ugo, te sti fi ed that he li ve d a cr oss the str ee t f ro m the 257 68 H ouse . A cc or din g to H ugo, Pi ne ir o li ve d a t the 257 68 H ouse f or about tw o w ee ks, havin g m ove d f ro m the 1600 1 House before he wa s arre sted. H ugo v isited the 16 001 House and never obse rv ed any dr ugs. P ine ir o’ s se co nd w itn es s, Co re y Bl ue , te sti fi ed

that he too lived near the 25768 House and that he took od d jobs as a handym an. He stated that he he lpe d P ine ir o r ep ai r an d c le anthe 257 68 H ouse a ft er P ine ir o bo ught

the hous e in N ove m

be r, appr oxi m at el y

thr ee w ee ks b ef

or e the a rr es t. A cc or din g to Blue, the pr evious tenan ts left the house dirty and filled with trash and other de br is. H e te sti fi ed

that he ha d be enw or

kin g w ithP ine ir o to c le anthe hou se f orSection 5G1.1(b) pr ovides: “ Where a statutorily require d minimum sentenc e is g reater 3 tha n t h e m aximumof

the a pp lic a ble guid e lin e ra

ng e , th e statut or ily

re qu ir e d mi nim

um s e nte nc e sh a ll be the guideline sentenc e.” U .S.S.G. § 5G1.1(b). 12 ab out thr ee w ee ks and tha t he ha d w orke d f or f ive day s e ac h of

tho se w ee ks. B lue st at edhe ne ve r sa w any dru gs or g un s i n t he ho us e. Finally , P ineiro’ s wife , Jac queline, testified that she and her husband m oved int o th e 2576 8 H ouse in N ove m be r 2002 , a nd tha t the hou se ne ed ed alot of
m ai nte nanc e w ork. A cc or din g to Ja cque lin e, she a nd h er hus band h ad

pr ev iou sly rented the 25768 House for a y ear, prior to m ovin g to the 16 001 House, w hich th ey ren te d fo r a y ear b efo re m ov in g b ackto th e 2 57 68 ho us e aft er p ur ch as in g i t. Sh e adm itt ed

that he r husb an d sm oke d m ar ij uana , but c la im ed she ne ve r sawany m ar ij uanagr ow ing in the hou se . Ja cque lin e al so t es tif ie d, a s P ine ir o ha d st at ed to Pe tti t duri ng the se ar chof the 257 68 H ouse , that V az que z w as P ine ir o’ s c ousi n. The jury subs eq ue nt ly fou nd Pin ei ro gu il ty of Co un ts I, III, V, an d VI. Af ter the verdict, Pineiro m oved for a newtrial, arguing that the evid ence w as ins uf fi ci en t t o sh owac onsp ir ac y or that he m ai nta ine d apla ce f or the pur pose of
m an uf act ur in g m ari

juan a. The d is tri ctco ur t s umm ari ly den ie d t he m ot io n. At sentencing, based on an adj usted offense level of 20, a crim inal histo ry category III , and the 60 -m onth statutory m inim um m andatory

on Count I, see U . S. S. G . § 5G 1. 1( b) , the dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc ed P ine ir o to a60- m onth te rm of 313

im prisonm ent on each count, to run concurrently , f our y ears of supervised release, an d a$10 0 sp ec ia l a sse ssm en t a s to e ac h c ount . T his appe al f oll ow ed . II. A. Fi rs t, P ine ir o arg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

by de ny ing his m oti on t o supp re ss e vid en ce se iz ed a t the 257 68 H ouse be ca use the a ge nts c ondu ct ed a warrantless sear ch without his con sent, or, alternatively , any consent he gave was inv oluntary , a s he w as not a dvi se d of

his r igh t t o r ef

use c onse nt. P ine ir o a lso ch al le nge s th e adm iss ibi lity of state m en ts h e m ad e af

te r Sp ec ia l A ge nt P ettit advis ed him of his Mi randar igh ts. H e ar gue s th at a ny inc ri m inatin g st at em en ts were co erce d a nd tak en in vi ol at io n o f Mi ran da . Ba se d onour

c ar ef ul r ev ie wof

the r ec or d, inc lud ing the tr an sc ri pt o f the s up p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , we ar e s a t i s f i e dth a tth e g o v e rn men te s t a b l i s h e d , b y a pr ep onde ranc e of

the e vid en ce , both th at

P ine ir o c onse nte d to the se ar cha t the 2576 8 H ouse and tha t hi s c onse nt w as vol unt ar y . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bl ak e, 888 F. 2d 7 95, 798 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) ( “ T he gov er nm en t be ar s th e bur de n of pr ovi ng b oth the e xis te nc e of

c onse nt and tha t the c onse nt w as not af unc tio n of

a cquie sc en ce to a cl ai m of law fu l auth or ity

but r athe r w as giv enf

re el y a nd v oluntari ly . ”) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ). S pe ci al A ge nt P ettit te sti fi ed that P ine ir o le d in ve sti ga tor s onatour ofTo the extent Pineiro sug g ests that the police we re r equire d to be more spe cific in a dvising 4 him of his rights, and w ere requir ed t o tell him he had a r ight to re fuse c onsent, this Court has square ly reje cted this argument. See United States v. Z apata , 180 F.3d 1237, 1242 (11th Cir. 1999) 14 his hom e an d th at

he c oope rate d w iththe ir se ar che ff

orts. H is c oope ratio n inc lud ed m ovi ng h is d og i nto the gara ge a nd the n in to the y ar d to e nable the agents to enter. T he agents first identified them selves and explainedthe purposes of the ir se ar ch . A nd, a lth ougha t l ea st f our a ge nts e nte re d P ine ir o’ s ho m e an d th e ag en ts were ar m ed , no on e h ada gu n d rawn an d t he gu ns were n ot vi si bl e. Pi ne ir o pr es en te d no e vid en ce to showthat the re w as a nythi ng i nhe re ntl y co er ci ve in the se ar ch . Mo re ove r, in de ny ing the m oti on t o su ppr es s, the
m ag istrate j udge f

ound P ettit ’ s te sti m ony

that P ine ir o ve rb al ly

c onse nte d to the se ar chto be m or e cr ed ibl e than P ine ir o’ s ve rs ionof the e ve nts . S uc h ac re dib ili ty fi ndi ng i s w ith in the pr ovi nc e of the f ac tf ind er . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ram ir ez -C hil el , 28 9 F .3d74 4, 7 49 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ), cert . den ie d, 5 37 U.S. 11 14 (20 03 ). On appeal, P ineiro has not sh own clear err or in the trial court’ s factual f indin gs, w hich thi s C ourt w ill not

r ev er se “ unl es s it

is co ntr ar

y to the law s of

na tur e, or

is so inc onsi ste nt o r im

pr oba ble on i ts f

ac e that no r ea sona

ble f ac tf ind er c oul d a cc ep t it. ” Se e id. ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ). I n sh ort, vie w ing the tot al ity of the c ir cum stanc es , the district court properly concluded that Pineiro consen ted to the search and that h i s c o n s e n twa s v o l u n t a ry. 4(findingthat the fa ilure to inform t he suspec t that he had the r ight to re fuse c onsent would not

invalidate other

wise valid conse nt) (citation omitted). 15 T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso did not e rr by de ny ing P ine ir o’ s m oti on t o su ppr es s his inc ulp at or

y state m en ts b as ed

on M ir an da . A ga in, a cc or din g to P ettit , he inf orm ed P ine ir o of

his r igh ts b ef

or e que sti oni ng. O the r than hi s own ve rs ionof the events, Pineiro pre sented no evid ence to the contrary in the district court. Se e Ram ir ez -C hil el , 289 F . 3d at 74 9 ( “ [I ] n e va luatin g th e fa ct ua l ve rs ionof

e ve nts be tw ee n th e lawe nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce rs a nd [ the de fe ndant] , w e shou ld d ef er to the [c ourt’ s] de te rm inatio ns unle ss [ its ] und er standi ng o f the f ac ts a ppe ar s to be

‘ unbelievabl e. ’ ”). T he m agistrate j udge foun d that Pettit’ s testim ony wa s m ore credible than Pineiro’ s contradictory testim ony . On this record, the district court did not c le ar ly e rr in its f ac tua l f ind ing s, nor

did it inc or re ct ly appl y the lawto the facts. See United State s v. G oddard, 312 F.3d 1360, 1362 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 538 U. S. 969 (200 3). B. Inr ev ie w ing P ine ir o’ s c ha lle nge s to the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce to supp ort hi s c onvi ct ion s onCo unt s I a nd I II , w e ap ply ade nov o st an dard

of review , but resolve all re asonable inferences in favor of the j ury ’ s verdict. See U nit ed S ta te s v. Ru dis ill , 187 F . 3d 1 260, 126 7 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) . T he e vid en ce isTo the extent that P ineiro asse rts that the indictment’s languag e, “on or befor e De cembe r 5 13, 2002,” per

mitted the gove rnment to g o back in time indefinitely to when there was a func tioning g row house a

t the 25768 House, his ar gument is unpersuasive. N ot only did he fa il to raise this issue in the district court in conne ction with the i n d ictment, but the g overnme nt’s evidenc e at tria l was consistent with the languag e of the i ndictment: the evidence showed that the 25768 House c ontained a func tioning g row house while under Pineiro’ s ownership. 16 suf fi ci en t so lon g a s ar ea sona ble tr ie r of

f ac t, c hoos ing a m ong re as ona ble in te rp ret at io ns of t he ev id en ce, co ul d fi nd gu il t b ey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. United States v. Lluesm a, 45 F.3d 408, 409-10 (11t h Cir. 1995 ). Indeed, a verdict of gui lty c an not be dis tur be d if the re is subs tanti al e vid en ce to supp ort i t, “ unl es s no trier of fa ct could have foundguilt b ey ond a reasonable doub t.” United State s v. L y ons, 53 F.3d 1198, 1202 (11th Cir. 1995) (citation om itted). As f or the sufficiency

of the evidence, Pineiro first argues that the record
w as ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t hi s c onvi ct ionf

or m ai nta ini ng a

pla ce f or the pur pose of m anuf ac tur ing m ar ij uanabe ca

use the gov er

nm en t di d no t e sta

bli sh whe n th e dis m an tle d gr owhou se w as f unc tio na l ( i.e. , be fo re or

a ft er he pur ch as ed

a nd
m ove d in to the hou se ), or w he n it ha d be endis m an tle d. H e ur ge s th at the governm ent’ s evidence showed only that he boug ht the hou se a fe w w eeks before his arr es t and tha t he ha d be enc le an ing a nd r ep ai ri ng the hou se f ro m the pr ev iou s ow ne r’ s m es s. 517

To c o n v i c tu n d e r

§ 8 5 6 , aju ry m

u s tf i n d“ t h a tth e d e f

e n d a n t( 1 ) kn o w i n g l y, (2 ) ope rate d or

m ai nta ine d apla ce , ( 3) f or the pur pose of m anuf ac tur ing , dis tr ibu tin g, or

usi ng any

c ontro lle d su

bst an ce . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Cl av is, 956 F . 2d 1079 , 109 0 ( 11th C ir . 199 2) . T hus, “ [t ] he of fe nse r equir es tw o m en ta l e le m en ts, knowledge and purpo se. T he purpose elem ent applies to th e person who is charged with m aintaining the place f or the illegal activity . I t is not su fficient that others po ss es s t he req ui si te pu rp os e.” Id . H er e, the re w as an a

bund an ce of

e vid en ce f

ro m w hic h atr ie r of

f ac t, ch oosi ng am ong re as ona

ble int er pr et at ion s of

the e vid en ce , c oul d f

ind , be y ond a re as ona ble doubt, that P ine ir o w as gui lty of kno w ing ly

m ai nta ini ng a

pla ce f or the purpos e of m anufacturing m arij uana. A gain, Spec ial Agent Pe ttit testified that during th e sear ch of the 25768 House, the agents recovere d green leaf y m aterial (whic h late r te ste d po sit ive a s m ar ij uana ), c lip pin g sc iss or s, pot s, pottin g so il, pot tin g c ont ai ne rs , ba lla sts , gr owli ght s, a f oil -b ac ke d in sul at ionboard , r oc kw ool , an d c onstru ct ionde br is - - al l of w hic h are c onsi ste nt w ithe qui pm en t and m at er ia ls use d ingr owhou se s. P ettit a lso sa id tha t P ine ir o a dm itt ed to co nstru ct ing the g r o wa r e a s . M o r e o v e r , a g e n t s f o u n dap i c tu r e o f

P i n e i r o s t a n d i n g a l o n g s i d e tr a ys of gr ow ing m ar ij uanapla

nts and h old ing abon g. F ina lly , ne ighbor W ill iam s sa id that he c oul d sm el l m ar ij uanac om ing f ro m the 257 68 H ouse be tw ee n January and18

June 200 2 and that he had ob served lights o n at the house at all hou rs of the day and nigh t. O n the basis of this evidence, alone, the governm ent established be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t t he ele m en ts req ui redto co nv ic t u nd er § 85 6. Pi ne ir o’ s th eo ry

of de fe nse a t tri al , li ke his a rg um en t onappe al , is that the evidence seized during the search of the 25768 House, including the dism antled grow house, belonged to the prior tenant and n ot him . Although Pineiro presented testim ony that would supp ort this th eory of the case, the j ury

wa s free to rej ect (a s it did) the defense explanation o f the evidence and find Pettit and W illiam s m ore credible. Indeed, on thi s record, the j ury rea sonablyalso could hav e inferr ed that Pi ne ir o m ai nta ine d th e gr owhou se f ro m the f ac t tha t P ine ir o li ve d inthe hou se co nta ini ng t ool s, tr as h, and l eave s c onne ct ed to a gr owhou se , both w ith in the hous e and in its garage. Moreover, Special A gent Pettit testified that Pineiro co nf es se d to ow ne rs hip of

the gr owm at er ia ls, a lth oughhe la te r re cante d th e adm iss ion . T his too sa tis fi ed the gov er

nm en t’ s burd ento es ta

bli sh a kno w ing and in te nt io na l v io la ti on of § 85 6. W e ar e lik ew ise unp er sua de d by P ine ir o’ s c ha lle nge to the suf fi ci en cy of the ev id en ce t o s up po rt h is co ns pi racy con vi ct io n, al th ou gh th is is a cl os er q ue st io n.

“ To support a conspiracy conviction , the governm ent m ust prov e ‘ (1) an agreem ent betwee n the defendant and one or m ore persons, ( 2) the objec t of which19

is to do either an unlaw ful act or a law ful act by

unlawful m eans.’ ” U nited States
v. S m ith , 289 F . 3d 6 96, 706 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) ( ci ta tio n om itt ed ). T he gov er nm en t m ust prov e that “ a conspiracy existed, that the defendant knew of it, and that de fe ndant, w ithkno w le dge , vol unt ar ily j oin ed it . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ry an , 289 F. 3d 1 339, 134 6 ( 11th C ir . 200 2) . T he gov er nm en t m ay

sho wpart ic ipatio n inthe co nspi ra cy

by c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce , if not by dir ec t e vid en ce , U nit ed S ta te s v. Anderson, 326 F. 3d 13 19, 1329 (11t h Cir. 2003 ) (c iting Ly ons, 53 F.3d at 1198), an d it ne ed pr ove onl y

that P ine ir o kn ewthe ge ne ra l natur e an d sc ope of the co nspi ra cy . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Cl ar

k, 732 F . 2d 1 536, 153 9 ( 11th C ir . 198 4) Pi ne ir o pr im ar ily

c ha lle nge s th e gove rn m en t’ s e vid en ce a s to the f ir st requirem ent -- an illegal agreem ent betwee n the defendant and one or m ore conspirators. Pineiro cla im s that the gov ernm ent showed onlythat he knew V az que z, but

f ai le d to e sta

bli sh tha t V az que z w as e ve r pr es en t a t the 257 68 Hou se , had ev er ca ll edth e 2 57 68 Hou se , or h adan y co nn ect io n t o t he ho us e. Pi ne ir o a lso a sse rt s th at

the gov er

nm en t di d no t su ff

ic ie ntl y c onne ct him ( Pi ne ir o) to the drugs found at the 160 01 House or the Marlin Road H ouse, both of which Va zquez owned or occ upied du ring the charged tim e period of the conspiracy (b eg inn ing in or

about F eb ru ar y 200 2 and c ont inu ing thr oughon o r ab out De cem ber 13, 2002). W e disagree.20

N ot o nly did num er ous w itn es se s te sti fy that P ine ir o kn ewV az que z, but the governm ent also presented evidence that the two m en we re c ousin s. More over, w he n V az que z m ove d in to the 160 01 H ouse , he li ste d P ine ir o a s ar ef er en ce on h is lease application. A nd, w hen Pineiro soug ht to break his lease early at that house, he w as able to pr oduc e V az que z to s ignane wle as e (tha t w oul d in cl ude the tw om onth te rm

le ft on P ine ir o’ s le as e) on the ve ry day he inf orm ed Mi llo n- Ro que of his int ent to vacate the house early . He even told her that the new tenant “ knew the hou se . ” I nde ed , onl y thr ee w ee ks l at er , on D ec em be r 12, 200 2, the a ge nts se ar ch ed the 160 01 H ouse , j ust

r ec en tly va cate d by

P ine ir o and the n oc cu

pie d by his c ousi n V az que z, and d isc ove re d asub stanti al m ar ij uanagr ow ing ope ratio n. T he gov er

nm en t a lso pr es en te d te sti m ony that an S U V ge ne ra lly

m at ch ing the description o f Pineiro’ s vehicle wa s parked in front of both th e Mar lin Road an d 16 001 H ouse s duri ng the c harg ed pe ri od o f the c onsp ir ac y ( ag ai n, be gin nin g in o r ar ound

F eb ru ar y 200 2 and c ont inu ing thr oughon o r ab out D ec em be r 13, 2002 ). D ur ing his O ct obe r 2002 sur ve ill an ce of

the 160 01 H ouse , w he re he subs eque ntl y

e xe cu te d ase ar chw ar

rant and arr es te d V az que z, S pe ci al A ge nt P ettit observed a black Chevy

Tahoe SUVwith “ custom rim s.” The S UVPettit sawhad ad ve rti si ng on it s s id e“ wit h t he word in g o f a y ach t re pa ir b us in es s . . . Atla nt ic s . .

. Mo tor Y ac ht M ai nte nanc e an d R ep ai r, ” w hic h is the nam e of the c om pany21

Pi ne iro own ed . Neig hb orRaff or d t es ti fie d t o s eei ng , th ree o r fo urti m es in 20 02 , a b l a c kS U V th a th e th o u g h th a d“c h r o me r i ms ” a n d“w h i t e l e t t e r i n g . . . ab o u ts o me kindof driving scho ol” parked outsid e of the Mar lin Road House, which, it w as undi sputed, was ow ned by Va zquez. Moreover, when V azquez signed the lease at the 160 01 H ouse , he a lso ow ne d th e Marl in R oa d H ouse . A nd, a s w e ha ve not ed , dur ing ase ar chof

the Marl in R oa d H ouse , pol ic e obse rv ed P ine ir o’ s ph one num ber tw ice on the “ caller i.d. ” unit. Both calls w ere placed during th e w eek pr io r to th e se arch an d wi th in th e ti m e frame of th e co ns pi racy. In addition to the abund ant evidence establishin g a close personal relationship betwee n Vaz quez and his cous in Pineiro, notably a re lationsh ip that V az que z de nie d w he n he w as arr es te d a t the 160 01 H ouse by c la im ing he did

not even know Pineiro, Special A gent Pettit testified at length abou t the subs tantial sim ilari tie s be tw ee n th e dis m an tle d gr owhou se a t the 257 68 H ouse a nd the ex ist ing gr owhou se s a t the 160 01 H ouse a nd M ar linRo ad H ouse . S im

ply put , the h o u s e s a s s o c i a t e dw i t h b o t h P i n e i r o a n dh i s c o u s i n V a z qu e z c o n t a i n e dth e s a me m at er ia ls, inc lud ing : f

luo re sc en t l igh tin g, e xtr a ai r co ndi tio nin g un its , buc ke ts and pot s, planti ng s oil and r el at ed m at er ia ls, f

oil -b ac ke d bo ar ds f

or li ght e nhanc em en t, extra vents and fans for cooling, and rockw ool m aterial. T he sim ilarity betwee n the dis m an tle d gr owhou se und er P ine ir o’ s c ontro l and the tw o op er at ion al gr ow22

hous es und er

V az que z’ s c ontro l, a ll w ith in t he ti m e pe ri od a lle ge d inthe indictm ent, is further

circum stantial evidence of an illegal agreem ent to work together to m anufacture m arij uana. It is w el l- se ttl ed

that the “ ex ist en ce of

a n a gr ee m en t i n ac onsp ir ac y c as e is rare ly proven by

direct evidence that the conspirators form ally entered or r eached ana gr ee m en t. . . . T he m or e co m m on m ethod of

pr ovi ng an a gr ee m en t i s th ro ugh ci rc um stanti al e vid en ce . ” U nit ed S ta te s v. Mo ra le s, 868 F . 2d 1 562, 157 4 ( 11th Cir. 1989 ). Indeed, “ [b] ecause the cr im e of conspiracy is ‘ predom inantlym ental in c om posi tio n, ’ it

is fr eque ntl y

ne ce ssary

to re sort t o c ir cum stanti al e vid en ce to pr ove it s e le m en ts. ” U nit ed S ta te s v. T ole r, 144 F . 3d 1 423, 142 6 ( 11th C ir . 199 8) (quot ing U nit ed

S ta te s v. S habani, 513 U . S. 10, 16, 115 S . Ct . 382 , 386 , 130 L . E d. 2d 22 5 (1994)). T hus, it is not eno ugh to discard a j ury ’ s finding of a c onsp iracy sim ply because the governm ent did no t present direct evidence of an illegal agreem ent. W e also look to the we ight o f circ um stantial evidence before unde rt ak ing the se ve re r em edy of ove rt ur nin g aj ur y ve rd ic t. A ft er

und er takin g a tho ro ugh re vie wof

thi s r ec or d, w e cannot

say that no tr ie r of

f ac t c oul d f

ind gui lt be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt. S ee L y ons, 53 F . 3d at 12 02. B as ed on a ll of the ev ide nc e, ar ea sona

ble j ur y c oul d have f

ound a n il le ga l a gr ee m en t be tw ee n th e co us in s, Pi ne iro an d Vaz qu ez, t o m an uf act ur e m ari

juan a. AFFIRMED.