United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-1505

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Arkansas.

Arnulfo Betancort-Salazar, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: January 27, 2010

Filed: February 1, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arnulfo Betancort-Salazar (Betancort) appeals the district court’s1

 judgment,

entered after a jury found him guilty of conspiring to distribute, distributing, and

possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and maintaining a residence

for the purpose of distributing and using a controlled substance, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), 846, and 856(a)(1), and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Betancort

pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States following a deportation. The

district court sentenced him to 144 months in prison. Betancort’s counsel has moved

1

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas.
to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing

that portions of an audio tape of a controlled buy should not have been admitted at

trial, that the testimony of cooperating witnesses was unreliable and thus there was

insufficient evidence to convict Betancort, and that the court’s imposition of a 2-level

enhancement for a supervisory role was erroneous. Betancort has filed a supplemental

brief, in which he argues that evidence that marijuana was found during the search of

his residence should not have been admitted at trial.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the

government to play portions of the audio tape. See United States v. Oslund, 453 F.3d

1048, 1054 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review). Although only portions of the tape

were intelligible and none of Betancort’s conversations--which all occurred in

Spanish--were intelligible, those portions that were understandable were consistent

with the witness testimony, the jury was told that the witnesses did not understand the

Spanish conversations, and Betancort’s counsel was able to argue that the

conversations in Spanish could have been about an unrelated topic. See United States

v. Trogdon, 575 F.3d 762, 765 (8th Cir. 2009) (partially inaudible tapes were

admissible where tapes were audible enough to provide jury with gist of

conversations; court should consider whether defendant had opportunity to offer his

version of inaudible portions), cert. denied, 78 U.S.L.W. 3394 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2010)

(No. 09-7983); cf. United States v. Webster, 84 F.3d 1056, 1065 (8th Cir. 1996)

(video tape that did not preserve all actions and included unclear audio track still had

significant probative value because it showed some sort of trade across kitchen

counter, and police later collected drugs from the counter).

We further hold that the evidence was sufficient to support Betancort’s

convictions. See United States v. Birdine, 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (this

court reviews sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to government, resolving

evidentiary conflicts in government’s favor and accepting all reasonable inferences

that support jury’s verdict). Witnesses testified that Betancort was the supplier of

-2-
methamphetamine that was recovered from them, and a search of Betancort’s home

revealed distribution amounts of methamphetamine and a cutting agent. The

testimony also showed that another individual acted as a middle-man for the drug

transactions. See United States v. Parker, 587 F.3d 871, 881 (8th Cir. 2009) (to

sustain conviction for possession with intent to distribute, government must prove

defendant knowingly possessed and intended to distribute drugs; constructive

possession, where defendant has knowledge of object, ability to control it, and intent

to do so, is sufficient); United States v. Hernandez, 569 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2009)

(to sustain conviction for distribution of controlled substance, government must prove

defendant knowingly and intentionally distributed controlled substance, and knew it

was controlled substance at time of distribution), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Nov. 3,

2009) (No. 09-8131); United States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692, 700 (8th Cir. 2002) (to

prove conspiracy, government must prove existence of agreement to achieve illegal

purpose, and defendant’s knowledge of agreement and knowing participation in

conspiracy). Although counsel argues that the testimony of the cooperating witnesses

was unreliable, their credibility was for the jury to determine. See United States v.

Foxx, 544 F.3d 943, 950 (8th Cir. 2008) (credibility determinations are well within

province of jury), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 91 (2009); United States v. McKay, 431

F.3d 1085, 1094 (8th Cir. 2005) (impeachment evidence was for jury to consider). As

to the conviction for maintaining a drug residence, Betancort testified that he paid to

rent the residence, and the other witnesses testified that he sold drugs from the

residence. See 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) (it is unlawful to knowingly lease any place for

purpose of distributing any controlled substance).

Because Betancort did not object in the district court to the supervisory-role

enhancement, we review for plain error, see United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080,

1086-87 (8th Cir. 2009), and we find none, see United States v. Davis, 583 F.3d 1081,

1097 (8th Cir. 2009) (to be subject to role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c),

defendant need only manage or supervise one other participant, and terms “manager”

and “supervisor” are construed broadly), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jan. 5, 2010)

-3-
(No. 09-8480). Finally, as to Betancort’s pro se argument, we find no plain error in

the admission of evidence that marijuana cigarettes were also found in the search of

his home, as it does not appear that the evidence was admitted to show Betancort’s

character. See Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); United States v. Frazier, 280 F.3d 835, 846-47

(8th Cir. 2002) (other-crimes evidence may be admissible to prove issue which Rule

404(b) specifically permits to be proven).

After reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, the judgment

is affirmed. We also grant counsel leave to withdraw. 

______________________________

-4-