FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L11, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 60 4

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cr-0 02 40 -KD-N-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti ff - Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us JUAN RAMON SAB INA, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Apri l 1 1, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT andCARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andMICKLE, Dis tri ctJu dg e. * PER CURI AM: Ju anSab in a ap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on forco ns pi racy to p os se ss m ari juan a wit h

Honora ble Stephan P. Mickle, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ngby

designation.in te ntto di st rib ut e in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 6, co nt en di ng th atth e

ev id en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s up po rt t he jury’ s v erd ic t. I. An an on ym ou s t ip st er ca ll eda drug tas k fo rce i n M ob il e Co un ty, Alab am a, rep orti ng th atpe op le were g ro win g m ari juan a atth ree p ro pe rti es in Eig htMi le , Alab am a. The p ro pe rti es are wi th in th ree m il es of e ach ot he r, an d t he ti ps te r sa id th aton each pro pe rty the re was no t o nl y a ho us e b utals o a n o utbu il di ng equi pp ed wit h l arg e ai r co nd it io ne rs . Po li ce o ffi cers ob ta in edsea rch warran ts forth e th ree p ro pe rti es m en ti on ed in th e ti p. Th e fi rs t p ro pe rty the off ic ers sea rch edwas l oc at edon Ji b R oa d a nd was own edby Sabi na , alt ho ug h h e h adlea se d i t t o Om ar Hu ezo . Ju stas t he ti ps te r sa id , Sab in a’s pr op ert y

ha d aho us e an d an o utbu il di ng . Ins id e th e h ou se , th e of fic ers fou nda m ari

juan a g ro win g o pe rat io n, wh ic h i nc lu de d h ig h- in te ns it y li gh ti ng equi pm en t, v ol ta ge -b oo st in g b al la st s u se d t o p owe r th atli gh ti ng equi pm en t, t im ers , and11 9 m ari juan a p lant s. Two c ars were p ark edin th e dr iv eway, an d o ne of t he m was re gi st eredto Sab in a. The o utbu il di ng co nt ai ne d remna nt s o f a m ari

juan a g ro win g o pe rat io n, i nc lu di ng two 5-t on airco nd it io ne rs us edto co un te ractth e h eatfro m th e h ig h- in te ns ity

li gh ti ng equi pm en t, wh ic h m ig htot he rwis e b urn t he m ari juan a p la nt s.

2The sec on d p ro pe rty m en ti on edin th e an on ym ou s t ip was o wne d b y Jo se Nor ie gaan d was lo cat edon Ch ut ne y Driv e. Whe n o ffi cers arri ve d a t t ha t pr op erty , th ey

en co un te redSab in a, Hue zo , andNori eg a drin ki ng be er o n t he ba ck po rch . Ins id e th e p ro pe rty’ s o utbu il di ng , off ic ers fou nd“ [a] very larg e an d el ab or at e m ari

juan a g ro w[in g] op erat io n,” in cl ud in g “ id en ti cal wiri ng an d b al la st s an d l ig ht s as at t he Ji b R oa d a dd res s” an d 2 45 m ari juan a p lant s. Andth ere wer e two 5-t on airco nd it io ne rs att ach edto th e o utbu il di ng . In si de th e Ch ut ne y Driv e ho us e, of fic ers fou ndm or e h ig h- in te ns it y li gh ti ng equi pm en t an d b al la st s. The th irdpro pe rty m en ti on edin th e ti p was lo cat edon Kus hl a Mc Leo d Ro ad . There th e o ffi cers un co ve reda m ari juan a g ro win g o pe rat io n s im il ar t o th os e atth e Ji b R oa d a ndCh ut ne y Driv e p ro pe rti es , in cl ud in g h ig h- in te ns it y li gh ti ng equi pm en t, b al la st s, t im ers , an o utbu il di ng wit h o ne 5-t on airco nd it io ne r at ta ch edto it , a garag e wit h a no th er 5 -to n a ir c on di ti on er at ta ch edto it , and16 0 m ari juan a p la nt s. A fed eral grandjury is su eda supe rs ed in g i nd ic tm en t ch arg in g S ab in a, Hue zo , Nori eg a, an d fo urot he r de fen dant s wi th co ns pi racy to p os se ss m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 6, an d po ss es si on of m ari

juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ). It al so ch arg edNori eg a an d Hu ezo wit h kno win gl y po ss es si ng a 3fir earm

in furth eran ce o f a dru g t raff ic ki ng cri m e in vi ol at io n o f 18 U.S.C. § 92 4( c)(1 ). In a dd it io n, i t i nc lu de d afor fei tu re co un t. See 21 U.S.C. § 8 53 . 1 A jury fou ndSab in a g ui lty

of c on sp ira cy , bu t t he co urt d ecl areda m is tri al on th e p os se ss io n c ha rg e aft er the jury de ad lo ck edon it . The p res en te nc e in ve st ig at io n re po rt a dv is edth atth e g ui de li ne s ra ng e fo r hi s co nv ic ti on on th e co ns pi racy cou ntwou ldha ve be en41 to 51 m on th s b utth atth e m an da to ry m in im um pri so n s en te nc e is 60 m on th s fo r th e qua nt it y of m ari juan a th atSab in a was co nv ic te d o f co ns pi rin g t o p os se ss . See 2 1 U.S.C. § § 8 41 (b )(1 )(B) , 84 6. Th e co urt s en te nc edhi m

to 60 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t an d i m

po se d a5-year te rm

of supe rv is edrel eas e. II.

“ W e rev ie w de n ov o t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce p res en te d a t t ria l, an d we wil l n otdi sturb agu il ty verd ic t unl es s, g iv enth e ev id en ce i n t he reco rd , no tri er o f fac t co ul d h av e fo un d g ui ltbe y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Un it edSta te s v . Whi te , 66 3 F .3d12 07 , 12 13 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . “ In One de fenda

nt remains a f

ug itive. Huezo pleaded guilty to the conspirac y

charg e and to 1 the cha rg e of posse ssing a

firea rm in further ance of a dr

ugtraff ickingcrime, a

nd two other defe ndants pleade d guilty to the conspirac y

charg e. Nor ieg a, Sabina, a nd one other

defe ndant went to trial, but the district court grante d that other de fenda nt’s motion for a judg ment of acquittal af

ter the g overnme nt’s case -in-chie f. Norie g a wa s convicted of conspirac y

and possession of marijuana

with intent to dis tribute and he appea led his convictions. In a sepa rate opinion issued today , we a re e nteringa limited remand in Norieg a’s c ase. See United States v. Norieg a, — F .3d —, No. 10-12480 (11th Cir. Apr il 11, 2012). 4rev ie win g t he su ffi ci en cy of t he ev id en ce, we l oo k a t t he reco rdin th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e v erd ic t an d d raw al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d re so lv e al l qu es ti on s o f cre di bi li ty in i ts fav or .” Id . (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . To p ro ve th atSab in a co m m it te d t he cri m e o f co ns pi racy to p os se ss m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te , th e g ov ern m en t h adto est ab li sh : (1 ) th e ex is te nc e o f an ag reem en t b etween two or m or e p ers on s fo r so m eo ne to po ss es s m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te ; (2 ) “ th at[Sab in a] kn ew of th e co ns pi rat or ia l go al ”; an d (3 ) “ th athe kn owi ng ly j oi ne d o r pa rti ci pa te d i n t he il le ga l v en tu re.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Bro wn, 5 87 F.3d10 82 , 10 89 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). “ Bec au se co ns pi raci es are s ecre ti ve by natur e, th e ex is te nc e o f an ag reem en t an d [S ab in a’s] pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co ns pi racy m ay be pro ve n e nt ire ly from

cir cu m st an ti al ev id en ce.” Whi te , 66 3 F .3dat 1 21 4 (q uo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Sab in a co nt en ds th atth ere was no t en ou gh ev id en ce t o c on vi cthi m of co ns pi racy, argu in g t ha t “ [t]he go ve rn m en t’s ev id en ce s ho ws o nl y [hi s] pre se nc e ata lo cat io n, wh ere m ari

juan a was fou ndon th e p ro pe rty.” It is tru e th at“ m ere pr es en ce i s i ns uf

fic ie ntto supp ort a c on vi ct io n fo r co ns pi racy, [bu t] th e jury is pe rm it te d t o c on si de r pr es en ce as a pr ob at iv e fac to r in de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e de fen da ntkn owi ng ly andin te nt io na ll y pa rti ci pa te d i n acri m in al sch em e.” Uni te d St at es v. Ba co n, 5 98 F.3d77 2, 7 77 (11 thCir . 20 10 ). In a dd it io n t o S ab in a’s 5pr es en ce atth e Ch ut ne y Driv e p ro pe rty, the reco rdco nt ai ns ot he r ev id en ce o f hi s gu il t. Sab in a o wne d t he Ji b R oa d p ro pe rty where off ic ers fou nda m ari

juan a gr owi ng op erat io n andfou ndhi s v eh ic le park edin th e driv eway. He als o l eas ed th atpro pe rty to o ne of h is co de fen dant s, wh om off ic ers fou nddri nk in g b eer wi th Sab in a atth e Ch ut ne y

Driv e p ro pe rty, where t he re was analm os t i de nt ic al m ari juan a g ro win g o pe rat io n t o t he on e atth e Ji b R oa d p ro pe rty. Sabi nawas li vi ng at t ha t Ch ut ne y

Driv e p ro pe rty, acco rd in g t o wh athe to ldanIm m ig rat io n an d C us to m s En fo rcem en t ag en t o n t he da y he was a rres te d. The go ve rn m en t al so in tro du cedev id en ce t ha t the th ree p ro pe rti es at wh ic h of fic ers fou ndm ari

juan a g ro win g o pe rat io ns were p artof o ne dru g c on sp ira cy . At each m ari juan a g ro win g o pe rat io n t he re were two 5-t onairco nd it io ne rs ; an in vo ic e sh owe d tha t s om eo ne in Mi am i, Fl or id a, ha d b ou gh t t hr ee o f th os e ai r co nd it io ne rs on a si ng le ord er fo rm ; an d a t ea ch of t he th ree m ari juan a g ro win g op erat io ns , off

ic ers fou ndon e o f th e th ree 5 -to n a ir c on di ti on ers th atwere l is te d on th atord er fo rm . In l ig htof a ll th atev id en ce, a re as on ab le jury co ul d h av e fo un d tha t t he go ve rn m en t h adest ab li sh edm or e th an“ m ere p res en ce” andpro ve d be y on d areas on ab le do ub t t ha t Sabi nawas g ui lt y of c on sp ira cy

to po ss es s m ari juan a wit h i nt en t t o d is tri bu te . AFFIRMED. 6