# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

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

No. 1 7- 12 89

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

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

Pla in ti ff - App el le e

v.

Mar co s Pe rez- Trev in o

Defen da nt

- App el la nt

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

No. 1 7- 13 52

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

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

Pla in ti ff - App el le e

v.

Ju an Flo res , als o k no wn as Alejan dr o B ecer ra

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll an t

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

No. 1 7- 17 18

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

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

Plai nt if f - Ap pe ll ee

v.Dan ie la Cas te ll an os

Defen da nt

- App el la nt

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal s fr om

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa - W at erl oo

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

11 , 20 18
Fil ed : M ay

29 , 20 18

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re COLLOTON, BENTO N, and ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

ERICKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg e.

Defen da nt s/ App el la nts Ma rc os Pere z-Trev in o (“ Pere z-Trev in o” ); Ju an Fl or es , a/ k/ a Alejan dr o Bec erra (“Fl o r e s ”); an d Dan ie la Cas te ll an os (“ Cas te ll an os ”) were

tri ed to ge th er by a jury in th e Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co u r t f o r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct

of Io wa fo r th ei r ro le s in a co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e. All th ree were

fo un d gu il ty an d were se nt en ced by th e co ur t. Afte r care fu ll y co ns id eri ng th e se ve ral

is su es rai se d b y

th e ap pe ll an ts , we affi rm th e jud gm en ts of t he di st ric t co ur t. 1

The Hon or ab le Lin da R. Rea de

, th en Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct 1

Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Io wa, ad op ti ng rep or ts an d reco m m en da ti on s fro m th e Hon or ab le Jo n S tu art Sco le s, t he n Un it ed St at es Ch ie f Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , wit h re sp ect to th e m ot io ns to su pp res s.

-2

-I. BACKGRO UND/PROCEDURE

In Aug us t 20 15

, el ev en de fen da nt s, in cl ud in g th e ap pe ll an ts

, were ch arg ed in

a co ns pi racy to de liver m et ha m phe tam in e in an d aro un d Mar sh al lt own , Io wa. Sev eral

of th e de fen da nt s en te red gu il ty p le as , bu t th e ap pe ll an ts ch os e to pr oc eed to a jury

tri al

. Dur in g th e si x- da y tri al

, s o me of th e de fen da nt s’ or ig in al co -co ns pi rat or s

co op erat ed wit h th e go ve rn m en t an d te st ifi ed

, ho pi ng fo r m or e fav or ab le se nt en ci ng

reco m m en da ti on s.

P r i or to tri al

, Pere z-Trev in o m ov ed to su pp res s ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g an Aug us t 12

, 20 15

, tra ffi c s t o p i n Okl ah om a. Pere z-Trev in o arg ue d th at th e ve hi cl e

was im pr op erl y im

po un de d an d th e in ve nt or y se arch was un la wfu l. The m ot io n was
he ar d by the ch ie f m ag is tra te jud ge , an d Ch ou te au (Ok la ho m a) Po li ce Offi cer Tho m as

Sco tt Fi sh er t e s t i f

i ed at th e he ari ng

. The ch ie f m ag is tra te is su ed a rep or t an d

reco m m en da ti on th at th e m ot io n be de ni e d

. Th e jud ge ov erru le d Pere z-Trev in o’s

ob jecti on s, ad op te d t he rep or t an d re co m m en da ti on , and de ni ed th e m ot io n.

Cas te ll an os br ou gh t a pr et ria l m ot io n to su pp res s evi de nc e ob ta in ed fro m th e

in te rcep ti on of wire an d el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns of a cel l ph on e id e n ti fie d as Targ et Tele ph on e #1 6, arg ui ng th at t h e a pp li cat io n fo r th e wire ta p: (1 ) la ck ed

su ffi ci en t sp eci fic it y to es ta bl is h pro ba bl e cau se , an d (2) fail ed to su ffi ci en tl y sh ow

th e wire ta p was ne ces sa ry as req ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (3 )(c)

. Afte r arg um en t on

th e m ot io n wit ho ut an y ad di ti on al ev id en ce, th e ch ie f m ag is tra te

, fin di ng th e affi da vi t

su ffi ci en t, is su ed a rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on th at th e m ot io n be de ni ed

. The jud ge

ov erru le d Cas te ll an os ’s ob jecti on s , ad op te d th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on , an d

de ni ed th e m ot io n.

Dur in g the fi ve -d ay tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t wit ne ss es te st ifi ed ab ou t in fo rm at io n gl ean ed du rin g t h e i n ve st ig at io n in cl ud in g ev id en ce ob ta in ed fro m in te rcep ts of

se ve ral te le ph on es

. The co op e r a t i n g co -co ns pi rat or s te st ifi ed ab ou t th ei r own

-3

-pa rti ci pa ti on in th e co ns pi racy an d th ei r kn owl ed ge of t he pa rti ci pa ti on of t he th ree

de fen da nt s. Fo ll owi ng t h e pr oc ed ur es ou tl in ed in Uni te d St at es v. Bel l, 57 3 F.2 d

10 40 (8 th Ci r

. 1 9 7 8 )

, th e tri al co ur t co nd it io na ll y ad m it te d he ars ay ev id en ce fro m

al le ge d co -co ns pi rat or s. Mu ch of th e te st im on y refe ren ced Mar i o Mu ril lo -Mo ra, a

m em be r of th e co ns p i r acy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, who was co nn ect ed by

ev id en ce to each of th e de fen da nt s , a s w e ll as to ot he r m em be rs of th e co ns pi racy.
The ev id en ce rev eal ed th at th e reas on th e go ve rn m en t ta rg et ed va rio us el ect ro ni c
de vi ces , in cl ud in g te le ph o n e #1 6, was th ei r co nn ect io n to co m m un ic at io ns to an d

fro m Mu ril lo -Mo ra re la te d t o t he di st rib ut io n o f na rco ti cs

.

At th e en d of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e, th e co ur t en te rta in ed ob jecti on s to th e co

co ns pi rat or he ars ay te st im on y

. The co ur t ov erru le d th e ob jecti on s, fin di ng th at each

of th e ad m it te d st at em en ts was m ad e by a co

- c o n s p i r at or in th e co ur se of an d in

fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy. The co ur t de ni e d P e rez- Trev in o’s req ue st fo r a jury

in st ru ct io n on m

ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es an d an in st ru ct io n reg ard in g a m ere bu y er/ se ll er
rel at io ns hi p.

The jury fo un d Perez -Trev in o gu il ty of co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e 50 0 gra m s or

m or e of a su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng a de te ct ab le am ou nt of m e t h a mp h e t am in e, whi ch

co nt ai ne d m or e th an 50 gr am s of pu re m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C.
§§ 84 1( a)(1 ), 84 1( b) (1 )(A), an d 8 46

. Fl or es an d Cas te ll an os were fo un d gu il ty of

co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m et ha m ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ),

84 1( b) (1 )(C)

, an d 84 6. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en c e d P e r e z-Trev in o to 29 2 m on th s’

im pr is on m en t an d s en te nc ed Flo res an d C as te ll an os to 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

II

. SUPPRESSI ON MOTI ONS

“ W he n rev ie win g th e de ni a l o f a m ot io n to su pp res s, we rev ie w a di st ric t

co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo .” Uni te d St at es

v. Eva ns , 78 1 F.3 d 43 3, 43 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Harri s, 74 7 F.3 d

-4

-10 13 , 10 16 (8t h C ir. 2 01 4) ). W e “ wil l af fir m th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n

to su pp res s ev id en ce un le ss it is un su pp or te d by su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce, ba se d on an

e r r on eo us in te rp ret at io n of ap pl ic ab le la w, o r, ba se d on th e en ti re reco rd , i t is cl ea r

a m is ta ke was m ad e.” Uni te d St at es v. Co ll in s, 88 3 F.3 d 10 29

, 10 31 (8 th Ci r. 20 18 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Brad en , 84 4 F.3 d 79 4, 79 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 )). W e m ay affi rm

on an y gr ou nd su pp or te d by th e reco rd

. Uni te d St at es v. Mu ril lo -Sal ga do

, 85 4 F.3 d

40 7, 41 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ). Fo r ex am pl e, in Uni te d St at es v. W el ls

, 34 7 F.3 d 28 0, 28 7
( 8 t h Ci r. 20 03 ), we affi rm ed th e de ni al of a m ot io n to su pp res s ba se d on th e

au to m ob il e ex cep ti on to th e warra nt req ui rem en t rat he r th an on th e se arch -in ci de nt

to -arr es t ex cep ti on on whi ch th e d is tri ct co ur t re li ed

.

A. Perez-T rev in o - S ea rch o f Auto m ob il e a nd Co nten ts

On Aug us t 1 2, 20 15

, Offi cer Fis he r no ti ced a 20 00 Old sm ob il e In tri gu e wit h

Nor th Dak ot a li cen se pl at es tra ve li ng no rth on Hig hwa y 69 in Okl ah om a. He st op pe d

th e ve hi cl e fo r a ta il li gh t vi ol at io n. As he ap pr oa ch ed th e ve hi cl e, Offi cer Fi sh er
ob se rv ed two oc cu pa nt s in th e car. Pere z-Trev in o pr es en te d an id en ti fic at io n card to

Offi cer Fi sh er bu t cl ai m ed to be li cen se d in Tex as

. Offi c e r F i s h e r ha d se pa rat e

c o n ve rs at io ns wit h Pere z-Trev in o an d th e pa ss en ge r. The two ga ve co nf li ct in g

st or ie s as to th ei r de st in at io n: Pere z-Trev in o in di cat in g Io wa Ci ty an d th e pa ss en ge r
cl ai m in g Mar sh al lt own

. Offi cer Fi sh er ran Pere z-Trev in o’s id en ti fy in g in fo rm at io n

an d de te rm in ed th at he di d no t ha ve a va li d li cen se

. A li cen se c h e c k f o r t he 2

pa ss en ge r rev eal ed th at hi s li cen se was su sp en de d. Offi cer Fi sh er arre s t e d Pere zTrev in o fo r dr iv in g wit ho ut a li cen se

. Hav in g be en in st ru ct ed by th e ch ie f of po li ce

th a t st op pe d ve hi cl es are no t to be le ft ab an do ne d on th e ro ad si de

, Offi cer Fi sh er

arra ng ed to ha ve th e ve hi cl e to wed

. Befo re th e ve hi cl e was to wed

, Offi cer Fi sh er

At tri al

, Offi cer Fi sh er te st ifi ed th at Pere z-Trev in o’s d r i vi ng li cen se was 2

su sp en de d in Nor th Dak ot a, bu t at th e su pp res si on h e a r in g he in di cat ed th at Pere zTrev in o was un li cen se d.

-5

-pr ep ared to do an in ve nt or y se a r c h o f th e ve hi cl e in or de r to lo g an y va lu ab le s.

Offi cer F is he r te st ifi ed :

Any t im e we ha ve arre st ed so m eo ne ou t of a v e h i c le or we ha ve m ad e

co nt act wit h so m eb od y whe re a ve hi cl e – whe re we ha ve be co m e li ab le
fo r it be cau se of an act io n fro m us , we m us t im po un d th at ve hi cl e wit h
th e two wreck er se rv ic es we ha ve on ro t a t i o n an d th en we ha ve to

co nd uc t a t ho ro ug h v eh ic le in ve nt or y

.

W he n Offi cer Fi sh er le an ed in si de th e ve hi cl e to be gi n th e in ve nt or y , he

sm el le d ra w m ari

juan a “ di rect ly ove r th e cen te r co ns ol e.” He ch eck ed th e co nt en ts

of th e cen te r co ns ol e be cau se , acco rd in g to hi s te st im on y , “ [i]t’s a c o mm on pl ace,

al on g wit h th e gl ov e bo x, fo r va lu ab le s or an y th in g so m eb od y is go in g to st or e in th e

ve hi cl e.” W he n he li fte d th e co ns ol e, he di sc ov ered a pl as ti c ba g co nt ai ni ng a gr een
le afy su bs ta nc e, whi ch was l at er d et erm in ed to be m ari juan a. The i nv en to ry

sea rch

fu rth er un co ve red va rio us fo od it em s an d dr in ks

. A on e do ll ar bi ll co nt ai ni ng a cl ear

su bs ta nc e, la te r de te rm in ed to be m et ha m ph et am in e, was fo un d un de r th e pa ss en ge r

se at

. Loc at ed in th e ba ck se at was a la rg e co ol er. Upo n op en in g th e co ol er, Offi cer

Fi sh er fo un d m or e fo od an d dr in ks an d a Zip lo c ba g “ co nt ai n i n g a la rg e am ou nt of

m et ha m ph et am in e.” It was la te r de te rm in ed th at th e ba g co nt ai ne d 87 7 gr am s of

m et ha m ph et am in e. A li st of it em s fo un d in th e se arch was rep or te d on a

“ CHOUTEAU POLICE DEPT. STORED VEHICLE REPORT” whi ch in di cat ed th e

ve hi cl e was reg is te red in Nort h Dak ot a to Marc os an d M ari a Per ez.

The Ch ou te au Po li ce Dep art m en t ha s a pu bl is he d po li cy fo r “ Im po un dm en t of

Veh ic le s” th at pr ov id es gu id an ce fo r im po un di ng an d in ve nt or y in g ve hi cl es

. Am on g

th e se ve ral st at ed reas on s fo r im po un di ng ve hi cl es are s afek eep in g of evi de nc e an d

“ pu bl ic as si st an ce tow ing

. ” T he publ ic as si st an ce to win g se ct io n sp eci fic al ly req ui res

to win g “[w ]h e n , fo ll owi ng arre st of th e own er/ op erat or or fo r ot he r reas on s, th e

ve hi cl e can no t be le ft at th e sc en e wit ho ut su bs ta nt ia l ris k of th eft fro m or da m ag e to

-6

-th e ve hi cl e or pe rs ona l pr ope rty co nt ai ne d th erei n.” The po li cy ’s in ve nt or y pr oc ed ur e

pr ov id es :

1. It is th e du ty of al l of f i c e rs , who im

po un d m ot or ve hi cl es , to

pe rfo rm an in ve nt or y

of t ho se ve hi cl es

. 2. The pu rp os e of th is in ve n t o r y wil l be to en su re a pr op er

acco un ti ng of al l pr op ert y in or at ta ch ed to th e ve hi cl e in or de r to

pr ot ect th e of

fic er fro m li ab il i t y of as su m ed da m ag es an d/ or

m is si ng pro pe rty.
3. The of

fic er pe rfo rm in g th e in ve nt or y wil l co nd uc t a th or ou gh an d

un ifo rm in ve nt or y

of t he ve hi cl e an d i ts co m pa rtments

.

One of th e reg ul at io ns li st ed in th e po li cy st at em en t pr ov id es th at “ [o ]fficer s sh ou ld

ta ke al l ne ces sa ry pr ecau ti on s whe n to win g a ve hi cl e to pr op erl y se arch an d in ve nt or y

a ve hi cl e. An in ve nt or y se arch is in te nd ed to pro te ct th e ci ti zen , th e of fic er and th e
wreck er co m

pa ny from

cla im s o f lo ss an d t he ft.”

Ci t i n g F lo rid a v. W el ls

, 49 5 U.S. 1 (1 99 0)

, Pere z-Trev in o arg ue s th at th e

in ve nt or y se arch of th e car vi ol at ed th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t be c a u s e t h e Ch ou te au

Po li ce Dep art m en t po l i c y di d no t pr ov id e su ffi ci en tl y st an da rd iz ed cri te ria fo r

se arch in g cl os ed co nt ai ne rs in si de th e ve hi cl e. “ It is ‘w el l-s et tl ed ’ la w th at ‘a po li ce

of fic er, aft er la wfu ll y ta ki ng cu st od y o f an au to m ob il e, m ay co nd uc t a warra nt le ss

in ve nt or y se arch of th e pr op ert y to se cu re a nd pr ot ect ve hi cl es an d th ei r co nt en ts

wit hi n po li ce cu st od y .’ ” Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 77 7 F.3 d 10 13

, 10 15 (8 th Ci r.

20 15 ) ( q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Reh ko p, 96 F.3 d 30 1, 30 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 )). The

se arch “ m

us t co m pl y wit h ‘stan da r di zed po li ce pr oc ed ur es .’ ” Id

. at 10 16 (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. Mayfiel d, 16 1 F.3 d 11 43

, 11 45 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )). “ The po li ce are no t

pr ecl ud ed fro m co nd uc ti ng in ve nt or y se arch es whe n th ey la wfu ll y im po un d th e

ve hi cl e of an in di vi du al th at th ey al so ha pp en to su sp ect is in vo l v e d i n i ll eg al

act iv it y .” Uni te d St at es v. Pap pa s, 45 2 F.3 d 76 7, 77 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Mar sh al l, 98 6 F.2 d 11 71 , 11 75 -7 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 93 )). W e co nc lu de th at th e

-7

-Ch out ea

u Po lice Dep art m en t to win g po li cy co nt ai ne d su ffi ci en tl y sta nda rd iz ed pol ic e

pr oc ed ur es fo r Offi cer Fi sh er to in ve nt or y th e co nt en ts of th e ve hi cl e an d it s

co m pa rtments

.

W e do no t de ci de whe th er th e Ch ou te au in ve nt or y po li cy pr ov id ed Offi cer

Fi sh er wit h au th or it y to op en th e co ol er. In st ead

, we affi rm th e de ni al of th e m ot io n

to su pp res s be cau se , a t th e ti m e he op en ed th e co ol er, Offi cer Fi sh e r h a d s u f fic ie nt

pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e ve h i c l e an d it s co nt en ts un de r th e “ au to m ob il e

ex cep ti on ” to th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t warra nt req ui rem en t. Acco rd Uni te d St at es v.
Wi n t e r s, 22 1 F.3 d 10 39

, 10 42 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ Troo pe r Bu sc h th en sm el le d raw

m ari juan a. Thi s crea te d pr ob ab le cau se to se arch th e car an d it s co nt ai ne rs fo r
dr ug s.”)

. “ Und er th e au to m ob il e ex cep ti on , of fic ers m ay se arch a ve hi cl e wit ho ut a

warra nt if th ey ha ve pr ob ab le cau se to be li e v e t h e v eh ic le co nt ai ns ev id en ce of

cri m in al act iv it y .” Uni te d St at es v. Dav is

, 56 9 F.3 d 81 3, 81 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. Co rte z-Pa lo m in o, 43 8 F.3 d 91 0, 91 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m ).

Pri o r t o s e a rch in g in si de th e co ol er, Offi cer Fi sh er ha d ob ta in ed co nt rad ic to ry

st at em en ts fro m th e car’s oc cu pa nt s as to th ei r de st in at io n, di sc ov ered th e pl as ti c ba g

co nt ai ni ng th e m ari

juan a, an d fo un d th e do ll ar bi ll co nt ai ni ng ap pa ren t dr ug res id ue

. Thi s was su ffi ci en t pr ob ab le cau se to se ar c h i n s i d e th e co ol er. Acco rd Dav is

, 56 9

F.3 d at 81 7- 18 (“ If th ere ha d be en an y do ub t ab ou t whe th er th e sm el l of sm ol de rin g

can na bi s co ns ti tu te d p ro ba bl e cau se to sea rch th e v eh ic le , su ch do ub t was ob vi at ed
by the di sc ov ery of

a ba g o f m ari

juan a in Davi s’s p oc ke t.”)

.

B. Cas tel la no s - W ir eta p o f Ta rg et Te le pho ne # 16

Dan ie la Cas te ll an os arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt erred in de nyin g he r m ot io n

to su pp res s ev id en ce ga in ed fro m th e wire ta p of Targ et Tele ph on e #1 6. In 18 U.S.C.
§ 25 18

, Co ng res s defi ne d t he pro ced ur e th at m us t b e fo ll owe d fo r th e “ in te rcep ti on

of wire , ora l, o r el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns .” 18 U.S.C. § 2 51 8( 10 )(a) pro vi de s:

-8

-Any ag gr ie ve d pe rs on in an y tri al

, he ari ng , or pr o c e e d i n g in or be fo re

an y co ur t, de pa rtment, of fic er, ag en cy , reg ul at or y bo dy, o r o t he r

au th or it y of th e Uni te d St at es , a St at e, or a po li ti cal su bd iv is io n th ereo f,

m ay m ov e to su pp res s t he co nt en ts of a ny wi re or or al co m m un ic at io n in te rcep te d pu rs ua nt to th is ch ap te r, or ev id en ce deri ve d th eref ro m , on th e g ro un ds th at – (i) th e co m

m un ic at io n was un la wfu ll y in te rcep te d; (ii ) th e or de r of au th or iz at io n or ap pr ov al un de r whi ch it was in te rcep te d
is in su ffi ci en t o n i ts face ; o r ( ii i) th e in te rcep ti on was no t m ad e in co nf or m it y wit h th e or de r o f

au th or iz at io n o r ap pr ov al

.

“ The rem ed ie s an d sa nc ti on s de sc rib ed in [ch ap te r 18 ] wit h res pe ct to th e in te rcep ti on

of e l e c t r on ic co m

m un ic at io ns are th e on ly jud ic ia l rem ed ie s an d sa nc ti on s fo r

no nc on st it ut io na l vi ol at io ns of th is ch ap te r in vo l v i n g su ch co m m un ic at io ns .” 18

U.S.C. § 25 18 (1 0) (c). An “ ag gr ie ve d pe rs on ” is de fin ed at 18 U.S.C. § 25 10 (1 1) as

“ a pe rs on who was a pa rty to an y in te rcep te d wire

, or al

, or el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io n

or a p ers on ag ai ns t wh om th e in te rcep ti on was di rect ed .” In pa rag rap h No. 2 of he r

m ot io n to su pp res s th e wire ta p ev id en ce, Cas te ll an os al le ge s: “ Dur in g th e pe rio d of

ti m e th e wire ta p au th or iz at i o n w as in pl ace, th e go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th at Ms

. Cas te ll an os was he ard on or a pa rty i n s o me of th e ph on e cal ls an d te xt m es sa ge s

in vo lv in g t arg et tel ep ho ne 16 .”

Cas te ll an os co nt en ds th at he r m ot io n sh ou ld ha ve be en gr an te d be cau se th e

affi da vi t at ta ch ed to th e warra nt ap pl ic at io n di d no t co nt ai n su ffi ci en t fact s to su pp or t

a fin di ng of pr ob ab le cau se or of ne ces si ty as req ui red by 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (3 )(a- c).

W e ad dr es s each as se rte d erro r se pa rat el y , Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 69 0 F.3 d 97 7,

98 4- 87 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ), an d ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in de n yi n g th e

m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

-9

-1. Pr ob ab le Ca us e

Sect io n 25 18 req ui res a two -s te p pr ob ab le cau se an al y si s. Fi rs t, th ere m us t be

pr ob ab le cau se th at an in di vi du al ha s co m m it te d, is co m

m it ti ng , or is ab ou t to co m m it

a cri m e li st ed in 18 U.S.C. § 25 16

. 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (3 )(a)

. Seco nd

, th e ap pl ic at io n

m us t s ho w pr ob ab le cau se th at “ pa rti cu la r co m m un ic at io ns ” rel at in g t o t he sp eci fic

of fen se wil l be ob ta in ed fro m th e in te rcep ti on of th e co m m un ic at i o n. 18 U.S.C. §

25 18 (3 )(b ). “ W e ha ve lo ng he ld ” th at th e pr ob ab le cau se st an da rd s in se ct io n 25 18

“ ar e co -ext en si ve wit h th e co ns ti tu t i on al req ui rem en ts ” of th e Fo ur th Am en dm en t.

Uni te d St at es v. Gain es , 63 9 F.3 d 42 3, 43 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v.
Leis ur e, 84 4 F.2 d 13 47 , 1 35 4 ( 8 t h Ci r. 19 88 )). Thi s gu id es us in ou r rev ie w o f th e
di st ric t co ur t’s pr ob ab le ca u s e an al y si s. W e al so reco gn iz e, ho wev er, th at th e

pa rti cu la rit y req ui rem en ts of se ct io n 25 18 (3 )(b ) are de fin ed by th e st at ut e. Id

. at 43 1-

32 (ci ti ng Uni te d Stat es v. Don ov an , 42 9 U.S. 41 3, 41 6, 42 8 (1 97 7) ). The fir st st ep
is no t d i s pu te d as § 25 16 (1 )(e) li st s an y of fen se in vo lv in g “ th e m an uf act ur e,

im po rta ti on , rece iv in g, co nc eal m en t, bu y in g, se ll in g, or ot he rwis e de al in g in na rco ti c
dr ug s, m ari hu an a, or ot he r da ng ero us dr ug s, pu ni sh ab le un de r an y la w of th e Uni te d

St at es .”

Our an al y si s fo cu se s on th e se co nd st ep

. The ap pl ic at io n fo r th e wire ta p

warra nt id en ti fie d Targ et Tele ph on e #1 6 as su bs cri be d to Geo ffre y Fo rn ey of Des

M o in es , Io wa, an d us ed by Mar io Mu ril lo -Mo ra. The ap pl ic at io n so ug h t

au th or iz at io n fo r in te rcep ti ng “ w ir e an d el ec tr oni c co m m uni ca tio ns” of se ve ral na m ed

in di vi du al s, in cl ud in g Mu ril lo -Mo ra, an d se ve ral un kn own m al es an d fem al es who

ha d be en co m

m un ic at in g wit h Mu ril lo -Mo ra an d ot he r co -co ns pi rat or s on pr io r

au th or iz ed ele ct ro ni c co m m un ic at io n in te rcep ti on s. Cas te ll an os was no t o ne of t he

in di vi du al s id en ti fie d in th e ap pl ic at io n

. An ap pl ic at io n fo r au th or iz in g a wire ta p

m us t id en ti fy “ th e pe rs on , if kn own , co m m it ti ng th e of

fen se an d who se

co m m un ic at io n s a re to be in te rcep te d.” 18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (1 )(b )(i v)

. The Su pr em e

Co ur t ha s in te rp ret ed th e st a t u t e as no t req ui rin g th e go ve rn m en t “ to id en ti fy an

-1 0-i n d i v i du al in th e ap pl ic at io n un le ss it ha s pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e (i) th at t h e

in di vi du al is en ga ge d in th e cri m in al act iv it y un de r i n ve st ig at io n an d (ii ) th at th e

in di vi du al ’s co nv ers at io ns wil l be in te rcep te d ov er th e ta rg et te le ph on e.” Uni te d

St at es v. Don ov an , 42 9 U.S. 41 3, 42 3 (1 97 7) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Kah n, 41 5 U.S.

14 3 (1 97 4) ). A wire ta p ap pl ic at io n m us t, ho wev er, “ na m e an in di vi du a l i f t h e

Gov ern m en t ha s pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th at th e in di vi du a l i s en ga ge d in th e
cri m in al act iv it y un de r in ve st ig at io n an d ex p e c t s to in te rcep t th e in di vi du al ’s

co nv ers at io ns o v e r th e ta rg et te le ph on e.” Id

. at 42 8. A di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of an

ap pl ic at io n fo r a wire ta p is ap pr op ria te if it is th e res ul t of a “ pr act ic al

, co m m on -s en se
de ci si on ” th at “ co ns id eri ng th e ‘tot al it y -o f-t he -ci rcu m st an ces

. . . th ere is a f a i r

pr ob ab il it y th at co nt rab an d or ev id en ce of a cri m e wil l be f o u n d in a pa rti cu la r pl ace.’” Tho m

ps on , 69 0 F.3 d at 98 4- 85 (q uo ti ng Ill in oi s v. Gate s, 46 2 U.S. 21 3, 23 8
(1 9 8 3 ) )

. “In de te rm in in g pr ob ab le cau se we are bo un d to co ns id er on ly th e fact s

co nt ai ne d wit hi n th e fo ur co rn ers of th e affi da vi t.” Uni te d St at es v. Mi lt on , 15 3 F.3 d

89 1, 89 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Glad ne y , 48 F.3 d 30 9, 31 2 (8 th Ci r.

19 95 )).

The ap pl ic at io n f

o r t h e wire ta p au th or iz at io n or de r sp eci fic al ly na m es m or e

th an twen ty in di vi du al s, in ad di ti on to se ve ral y et un id en ti fie d ta r g et su bjec ts

su sp ect ed in th e co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e na rco ti cs , ba se d on in ve st ig at io ns fro m pr io r

co ur t-a ut ho riz ed wire ta ps

. The g o v ern m en t su ffi ci en tl y id en ti fie d al l of th e

in di vi du al s i t h ad pro ba bl e cau se to be li ev e were i nv ol ve d i n c riminal act iv it y

.

The ap pl ic at io n in fo rm ed th e co ur t of th e type of ev id en ce la w e n fo rcem en t

ex pe ct ed to reco ve r fro m th e ta rg et ed tel ep ho ne . It s ta te s:

In pa rti cu la r, th es e wire an d el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io ns are ex pe ct ed to in cl ud e co nv ers at io ns of a n e vi de nt ia ry na tu re re ve al in g: 1) The de ta il s o f car ry in g o ut th e ab ov e-n am ed off en se s;

-1 1-2) The id en ti ty of in di vi du al s as y et un kn own who are i n vo lv ed in th es e of

fen se s an d th e ex te nt of th e i r in vo lv em en t; 3) The ti m es an d pl aces whe re il le ga l tra ns act io ns wil l oc cu r; 4) The am ou nt s, pr ic es , et c., of il le ga l na rco ti cs /c on tro ll ed

su bs ta nc es whi ch ha ve be en an d ar e b e i n g po ss es se d an d
di st rib ut ed by the se in di vi du al s; 5) The id en ti ty of th e so ur ce of th es e il le ga l dr u g s a n d th e

ex te nt of t he so ur ce’s i nv ol ve m en t; 6) The m an ne r in whi ch m on ey de riv ed fro m th e sa le of
i l l e g a l n a r c o t i c s / c o n t r o l l e d s u bs ta nc es is u t i l i z e d

,
co nc eal ed an d d is pe ns ed ; 7) The arra ng em en t an d ve rif ic at io n of m eet in g s be twee n in di vi du al s i nv ol ve d i n t he ab ov e-n am ed off en se s; 8) The na tu re an d s co pe of t he co nt in ui ng co ns pi racy; an d 9) The rol e o f eac h p ers on pa rti ci pa ti ng in th e co ns pi racy.

Att ach ed to th e ap pl ic at io n is an affi da vi t of Bryan J. Fu rm an , a Ta sk Fo rce
Offi cer wit h th e Dru g Enfo rcem en t Adm in is tra ti on (“ DEA”) in Ced ar Rap id s, Io wa.

At th e t i me h e pr ep ared th e affi da vi t, Offi cer Fu rm an ha d ov er twen ty y ears

ex pe rie nc e in la w en fo rcem en t and ha d bee n with th e DEA for o ve r fiv e y ears

. His

ex pe rie nc e pr ov id ed hi m wit h kn owl ed ge of th e la ng ua ge an d t erm in ol og y us ed by

il le ga l na rco ti cs de al ers to di sg ui se th ei r il le ga l act iv it y

. The affi da vi t in fo rm s th e

co ur t of th e fact s whi ch le d th e in ve st ig at or s to Targ et Tele ph on e #1 6. Fo r ex am pl e,

Mu ril lo -Mo ra was kn own to be op erat in g m os tl y ou t of th e Mar sh al lt own , Io wa, area

an d was us in g m

ul ti pl e te le ph on es to co m m un ic at e wit h co -co ns pi rat or s to faci li ta te

th e dr ug tra ffi ck in g. Mu ril lo -Mo ra was id en ti fie d as us in g Targ et Tele ph on e #1 6 to

co nd uc t bu si ne ss wit h ot he r kn own co -c onsp ira to rs us in g ta rg et ed te le ph on es al read y

su bjec t to co ur t-a ut ho riz ed wire ta ps

. Tran sc rip ts of sp eci fic co nv ers at io ns in vo lv in g

th e fac il it at io n o f na rco ti cs de li ve rie s ar e in cl ud ed in th e aff id av it

.

The affi da vi t co nt ai ns m or e tha n tw en ty -f ive pa ge s, inc lud ing nin et een se pa rat e

pa rag rap hs

, de ta il in g in fo rm at io n kn own to th e Ta sk Fo rce th at su pp or te d th e

-1 2-ap pl ic at io n to in te rcep t co m m un ic at io ns fro m Ta r g e t Tele ph on e #1 6. Cas te ll an os

co nt en ds th at be cau se Fu rm an rep eat ed ly us ed th e ph ras e “ I be li ev e” to in tro du ce hi s

fact ua l refe ren ces , th e st at em en ts are no t fact s th at th e m ag is tra te can rel y on bu t are

in st ead m ere be li efs

, hu nc he s, an d sp ec ula tiv e opi nio ns. Su ch hy per-t ech ni cal pa rs in g

of ph ras in g is in co ns is te nt wit h th e ev id en ce an d co m m on se ns e. W hi le it mi g h t

ha ve b e e n mo r e ap pr op ria te fo r Offi cer Fu rm an to ha ve writ te n “ it is m y op in io n,
ba se d on m

y ex pe rie nc e in la w en fo rcem en t an d na rco ti cs in ve st ig at io ns ,” rat he r th an

“ I be li ev e,” hi s ch oi ce of word s d id no t n eg at e th e fac tu al in fo rm at io n h e rel at ed to

th e co ur t i n t he affi da vi t.

Bas ed on al l of th e ci rcu m st an ces , we co nc lu de th at th e d i s tri ct co ur t’s gr an t

of au th or it y to in te rcep t co m m un ic at io ns to an d fro m Targ et Tele ph on e #1 6 was th e

res ul t of a “ pr act ic al

, co m m on -s en se de ci si on ” th at th ere was a “ fai r pr ob ab il it y th at

co nt rab an d or evi de nc e” of crim in al act iv it y wou ld be fo un d. E.g., Tho m ps on , 69 0

F.3 d at 98 4- 85

. The ap pl ic at io n and affi da vi t co nt ai ne d su ffi ci en t fact s to es ta bl is h

pr ob ab le cau se

.

2. Nece ss it

y

In ad di ti on to fin di ng pr ob ab le cau se , in or de r to is su e a warra nt fo r a wire ta p,

th e co ur t m

us t fin d th at “ no rm al in ve st ig at iv e pr oc ed u r e s h a ve be en tri ed an d ha ve

fai le d or reas on ab ly ap pe ar to be un li ke ly to su ccee d if tri ed or to be to o da ng ero us .”

18 U.S.C. § 25 18 (3 )(c)

. “ Thi s ne ces si ty req ui rem en t pr ev en ts th e go ve rn m en t fro m

ro ut in el y us in g wire ta ps ‘as th e in it ia l st ep in an in v e s t i g a t i o n .’ ” Uni te d St at es v.

Co lb ert

, 82 8 F.3 d 71 8, 72 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Tho m ps on , 21 0

F.3 d 8 5 5

, 85 8- 59 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 )). “ Bu t as we ha ve rep eat ed ly he ld

, th e ne ces si ty

req ui rem en t d oe s n ot m an da te th at th e go ve rn m en t ‘ ex ha us t all po ss ib le tec hn iq ue s
be fo re ap pl y in g fo r a wire ta p.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mac kl in

, 90 2 F.2 d 13 20

, 13 26 -2 7 (8 th Cir . 19 90 )). “ The go ve rn m en t is si m pl y no t re qu ire d t o u se a wire ta p

on ly as a la st res or t.” Mac kl in

, 90 2 F.2 d at 13 27 (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Mat y a, 54 1

-1 3-F.2 d 74 1, 74 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 76 )). The is su in g ju d ge de te rm in es “ in a co m m on se ns e

m an ne r” whe th er th e ne ces si ty req ui rem en t is m et

. Id

. (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. W e m ay

rev ers e th is de te rm in at io n of fact on ly if it is cl earl y erro ne ou s. Tho m ps on , 69 0 F.3 d

at 98 6 (q uo ti ng Mac kl in , 90 2 F .2d at 1 32 7) ).

Thi s is no t a cas e i n w h ic h th e go ve rn m en t de ci de d to us e a wire ta p at th e
be gi nn in g of it s i n v es ti ga ti on of cri m in al act iv it y

. Offi cer Fu rm an ’s affi da vi t

co nt ai ns si xt y -ei gh t pa rag rap hs pr ov id in g de ta il s of va rio us in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es

us ed pr io r to req ue st in g th e wire ta p of Targ et Tele ph on e #1 6. In ve st ig at or s ut il iz ed

pr io r wire ta ps , co nf

id en ti al so ur ces , co nt ro ll ed pu rch as es , p h ysi cal su rv ei ll an ce,

un de rco ve r ag en ts

, s e a r c h warra nt s, in te rv ie ws, an d tra sh se arch es , am on g ot he r

s t r a t e gi es

. In ve st ig at or s in te rv ie wed su sp ect s an d ut il iz ed gr an d jury s ub po en as t o

th e ex te nt po ss ib le

. The affi da vi t ad eq ua te ly ex pl ai ns th e li m it ed su cces s of sp eci fic

in ve st ig at iv e te ch ni qu es , th e li ke ly la ck of su c c e s s of cert ai n st rat eg ie s, an d th e

po ss ib le da ng ers rel at ed to pa rti cu la r in ve st ig at iv e ta ct ic s. T he af fi da vit ind ic at es th at

th e ap pl ic at io n was ba se d on th e co nc lu si on th at “ [t]he on ly reas on a b l e m et ho d of

de ve lo pi ng th e ne ces sa ry ev id en ce of vi ol at io ns is to in te rcep t te le ph on ic an d

el ect ro ni c co m

m un ic at io ns as r eq ue st ed .”

Offi cer Fu rm an ’s affi da vi t co nt ai ns su ffi ci en t fact s to su pp or t a fin di ng th at th e

ne ces si ty req ui rem en t of § 25 18 (3 )(c) was m et

. The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in at io n on

th is is su e is no t cl earl y

erro ne ou s.

II I. PEREZ -TREVI NO’S MO TI ON FOR JUDG MENT OF ACQUI TTAL

W e rev ie w de no vo a de ni al of a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t of acq ui tt al

, “ ev al ua ti ng

th e ev id en ce in t h e l i g ht m os t fav or ab le to th e ve rd ic t an d dr awin g al l reas on ab le

in fere nc es in it s favo r.” U ni te d Stat es v. Alm ei da -Oli va s, 86 5 F.3d 10 60 , 10 62 (8 th

Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at e s v. W rig ht , 7 39 F.3 d 11 60 , 1 16 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )).

The co nv ic ti on wil l no t be di st ur be d un le ss “ no reas on ab le jury co ul d ha ve fo un d th e

-1 4-de fen da nt gu il ty be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Serr an oLop ez, 36 6 F.3 d 62 8, 63 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 04 )). To pr ov e a co ns pi racy, “ th e go ve rn m en t

ne ed no t pr ov e a fo rm al ag reem en t ex is te d, bu t rat he r ‘a ta ci t un de rs ta nd in g’ be twee n

th e pa rti es .” Uni te d St at es v. Park er, 87 1 F.3 d 59 0, 60 0- 01 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d S ta te s v . May, 47 6 F .3d 63 8, 6 41 (8t h C ir. 20 07 )). “ W e wil l no t reve rs e th e

ve rd ic t if the evi de nc e is su ffi ci en t fo r a jury to fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at

th e d efen da nt pa rti ci pa te d i n t he co ns pi racy.” Id.

“ To co nv ic t [Per ez-Tre vi no ] fo r co ns pi racy to di st rib ut e m or e th an 50 0 gr am s

o f a m ix tu re an d su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng m et ha m ph et am in e, ‘the go ve rn m en t m us t

pr ov e: (1 ) th at th ere was a co ns pi racy, i.e., an ag reem e n t t o d i s t rib ut e th e [m et ha m ph et am in e]; (2 ) th at [Per ez-Tre vi no ] kn ew of th e co ns pi racy; an d ( 3 ) th at [h e] in te nt io na ll y joi ne d th e co ns pi racy.’ ” Alm ei da -Oli va s, 86 5 F.3 d at 10 62 (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. San ch ez, 78 9 F.3 d 82 7, 83 4 (8 th C i r

. 20 15 ) (s eco nd al te rat io n in

or ig in al )). Pere z-Trev in o arg ue s th at th ere was in su ffi ci en t ev id en ce fo r a jury to fin d

pr oo f b e yo n d a reas on ab le do ub t th at he kn ew of th e co ns pi racy or in te nt io na ll y joi ne d it

. He ci te s Uni te d St at es v. Carp er, 94 2 F.2 d 12 98 (8 th Ci r. 19 91 ), an d Uni te d

St at es v. Co x, 94 2 F.2 d 12 82 (8 th Cir . 19 91 ), to su pp or t h is arg um en t fo r acq ui tt al

. In Co x, we rei t e r at ed th at “ [a] co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on req ui res a sh owi ng th at th e

al le ge d in di vi du al s joi ne d to ge th er to fu rth er an ag reed -to cri m in al pu rp os e: he re,
di st rib ut io n of co cai ne .” 94 2 F. 2 d a t 1 2 8 5 (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Bec au se th e

go ve r n men t’s ev id en ce fai le d to “ ex pl ai n why va rio us un na m ed in di vi du al s

a cco m pa ni ed Co x,” we rev ers ed hi s co ns pi racy co nv ic ti on

. Id

. at 12 8 5

- 8 6

. We

sp eci fic al ly ex pl ai ne d: “ W it ho ut so m e ev id e nc e th at th e acco m pa nyin g in di vi du al s

ag reed to ta ke co cai ne fo r di st rib ut iv e pu rp os es , we do no t se e ho w a rat io na l tri er of

fact co ul d fin d be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t th at a co ns pi racy ex is te d fo r th at pu rp os e.”

Id

. at 12 86

. In Carp er, we rev ers ed Ju li et te St ark ’s co nv ic ti on be cau se th e ev id en ce

ne ve r id en ti fie d her un na m ed so ur ce fo r m et ha m ph et am in e. 94 2 F .2d at 1 30 2. W e

no te d t ha t, wit ho ut sp ecu la ti ng th at Carp er was he r so ur ce, t he ev id en ce t en de d “ to

-1 5-pr ov e Ju li et te St ark is gu il ty of a cri m e, bu t no t co ns pi racy wit h Carp er to di st rib ut e

m et ha m ph et am in e.” Id

.

A s th e tri al co ur t su m

m ari zed in it s or de r de nyin g th e m ot io n fo r acq ui tt al

,

s ub st an ti al ev id en ce su pp or te d th e fin di ng th at a co ns pi racy to di st ri b u t e

m et ha m ph et am in e ex is te d, P e rez- Trev in o kn ew of th e co ns pi racy, an d he

i nt en ti on al ly pa rti ci pa te d in th e co ns pi racy. W it ne ss es , who in cl ud ed si x c o

co ns pi rat or s, co nf

irmed th e ex is te nc e of a dynam ic co ns pi r a cy , in whi ch se ve ral

in di vi du al s pa rti ci pa te d. Pere z-Trev in o, al on g wit h Mu ril lo -Mo ra an d Fl or es ,
pa rti ci pa te d as hi gh er-l ev el su pp li ers of m et ha m p h e t am in e, su pp lying so m e of th e

sa m e cu st om ers . P erez -Trev in o was cau gh t s ev eral ti m es wit h s ub st an ti al am ou nt s

of m et ha m

ph et am in e in hi s po ss es si on

. Pe r e z -Trev in o res id ed wit h ot he r co

co n sp ira to rs , ex ch an ge d m ul ti pl e te le ph on e cal ls wit h co -co ns pi rat or s, in cl ud in g

Mu ril lo -Mo ra an d Je ss ic a Cen ic ero s, an d pu rch as ed a ve hi c l e fro m on e of th e co

co ns pi rat or s. Pere z-Trev in o u s e d Cen ic ero s’s ga rag e to st or e two po un ds of

m et ha m ph et am in e. In ex ch an ge , Cen ic ero s ke pt a qu art e r o f a po un d to se ll fo r
he rs el f. Van ia Gua da rram a, a m em be r of th e co ns pi racy who te st ifi ed a t t r i a l,

pu rch as ed m et ha m

p h e t am in e fro m a so ur ce kn own as El Bo te

, who al so su pp li ed

m et ha m ph et am in e to Per e z

- Tr ev in o. Gua da rram a te st ifi ed th at sh e pu rch as ed

m et ha m ph et am in e fro m Pere z-Trev in o. The re was al so ev id en ce th at Pere z-Trev in o

“ fro nt ed ” m et ha m

ph et am in e to Gua da rram a an d la te r wen t to he r res id en ce to co ll ect

an un di sc ha rg ed de bt

.

Su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e jury ve rd ic t. Co x an d Carp er are c l e a r l y
di st in gu is ha bl e. The reco rd co nt ai ns ev id en ce th at Pe r e z

- Tr ev in o ha d di rect an d

su bs ta nt ia l co nt act wit h se ve ral kn own , id en ti fie d co ns pi rat or s. Fu rth er, th e ev id en ce
sh ows th at th es e c o n t a c ts were fo r th e pu rp os e of faci li ta ti ng th e di st rib ut io n of

m et ha m ph et am in e in an d aro un d Mar sh al lt own , Io wa. Acco rd Uni te d St at es v.
Garci a, 56 9 F.3 d 8 8 5

, 88 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (“ A reas on ab le jury ev al ua ti ng th is

ev id en ce co ul d fin d th at [d efen da nt ] was an act ua l pa rti ci p a n t i n th e

-1 6-m et ha m

ph et am in e-d is tri bu ti on co ns pi racy.”). The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y de ni ed th e

m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o f acq ui tt al

.

VI. PE R E Z-T R E V I N O ’ S PR O PO S E D M U L T I P L E C O N S PI R A C Y

INST RUCTIO N

“ The ‘iss ue of whe th er th e de fen se pr od uc ed su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to su st ai n a

p a r t i c u l ar in st ru ct io n, su ch as a m ul ti pl e co ns pi racy in st ru ct io n, is ge ne ral ly a

qu es ti on of la w su bjec t to de no vo rev ie w.’ ” Uni te d St at e v. Maz a, 93 F. 3d 13 90

, 13 98 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ja ck so n, 67 F.3 d 13 59

, 13 67 (8 th Ci r.

19 95 )); se e al so Uni te d St at es v. Hul l, 41 9 F.3 d 76 2, 76 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W he n th e

ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ex is te nc e of a si ng le co ns pi racy, a co ur t do es no t err in de nyin g

a req ue st fo r a m

ul ti pl e co ns pi racy in st ru ct io n. In Uni te d St at es v. Delg ad o, 65 3 F.3 d

72 9, 73 5- 36 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

, we

su m m ari zed :

A si ng le co ns pi racy is c o mp o s ed of in di vi du al s sh ari ng co m m on
p ur po se s or ob

jecti ve s un de r on e ge ne ral ag reem en t. In ev al ua ti ng whe th er a va ria nc e oc cu rred

, we lo ok to th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces

an d gi ve th e ve rd ic t th e be ne fit of al l reas on ab le in fere nc es th at can be
dr awn f r o m t h e ev id en ce. A va ria nc e ba se d on m ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es jus ti fie s re ve rs al on ly if a “ sp il lo ve r” o f ev id en ce fr om on e co ns pi racy
to an ot he r pr ejud ic es th e d efen da nt ’s su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts

.

A si ng le co ns pi racy is no t co nv ert ed to m ul ti pl e co nspir ac ie s sim

ply be cau se di ffer en t

de fen da nt s en te r a co ns pi racy at di ffer en t ti m es or pe rfo rm di ffer en t fu nc ti on s. Maz a,

93 F.3 d at 13 98 (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Bak er, 85 5 F.2 d 13 53

, 13 57 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ).

Nor do es “ th e f

a c t th at di ffer en t in di vi du al de fen da nt s co nt rib ut ed a po rti on of th e

to ta l dr ug s to su pp li ers or pa rti ci pa te d in nu m ero us se pa rat e tra ns act io ns

. . . co nv ert

a si ng le co ns pi racy to m

ul ti pl e co ns pi raci es .” Id

. at 13 98 -9 9 (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Sp ect or , 79 3 F.2 d 93 2, 93 5 (8 th Ci r. 19 86 ). A si ng le co ns pi racy can be pr ov en ev en

-1 7-th ou gh th e pa rti ci pa nt s an d th ei r act iv it ie s ch an ge ov er ti m e. Uni te d St at es v. Sl ag g,

65 1 F.3 d 83 2, 84 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). Thi s is tru e ev en if so m e pa rti ci pa nt s are un kn own

to ot he r co ns pi rat or s or un in vo lv ed in so m e tra ns act io ns

. Uni te d St at es v. Lon gs , 61 3

F

. 3 d 1 1 74

, 11 76 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). Dru g de al ers who so m et im es co m pe te wit h on e

an ot he r m ay in fact be m em be rs of th e sa m e c o n s p i r a c y. S la gg , 65 1 F.3 d at 84 2;
Delg ad o, 65 3 F.3 d at 73 6 (ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Je ffer s, 57 0 F.3 d 55 7, 56 8 (4 th Ci r.

20 09 )).

As i nd ic at ed ab ov e, th e ev id en ce at tri al eas il y su pp or ts a fi nd in g t ha t Pe rezTr ev in o kn owi ng ly pa rti ci pa te d in th e si ng le co ns pi racy al le ge d at tri al

. Th e t r i a l

co ur t di d no t err in de nyin g th e m ot io n fo r a jury in st ru ct i o n o n m ul ti pl e

co ns pi raci es

. 3

V. D E F E N D A N TS ’ OB JE C TI ON S TO TH E A D M IS SI ON OF TE ST IM ON Y

“ W e rev ie w t h e d i st ric t co ur t’s ad m is si on of ev id en ce fo r an ab us e of

di sc ret io n, affo rd i n g ‘d e f eren ce to th e di st ric t jud ge who sa w an d he ard th e

ev id en ce.’” Uni te d St at es v. Mel to n, 87 0 F.3 d 83 0, 83 7 (8 t h C i r

. 20 17 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d St at es v. Two Elk

, 53 6 F.3 d 89 0, 90 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). “ An ev id en ti ary ru li ng
is ha rm le ss if th e su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s of th e de fen da nt w e r e u n a f f e ct ed

, an d th e erro r

ha d no , or on ly a sl ig ht

, in flu en ce on th e ve rd ic t.” Id

. ( q u o t i ng Uni te d St at es v.

W or m an , 62 2 F.3 d 96 9, 97 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )). W e wil l affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s

de ci si on un le ss we fin d an ab us e of di sc ret io n th at is bo th cl ear an d pr ejud ic ia l. E.g.,

Uni te d S ta te s v . W om ack , 19 1 F .3d 87 9, 8 83 (8t h Ci r. 19 99 ).

The re is no in di cat io n th at Pere z-Trev in o was in hi bi te d fro m arg ui ng hi s la ck 3

of kn owl ed ge of

, or pa rti ci pa ti on in

, th e co ns pi racy as it was al le ge d at tri al

. A tri al

co ur t do es no t err in de nyin g a pr op os ed in st ru ct io n whe n th e in st ru ct io ns as a who le
ad eq ua te ly ad vi se th e jury of th e la w an d pe rm it th e pa rti es to arg ue ap pr op ria te ly to th e jury. See Uni te d St at es v. Thu nd er, 74 5 F.3 d 8 7 0

, 87 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Chr is ty, 64 7 F .3d 76 8, 7 70 (8t h C ir. 2 01 1) ).

-1 8-A. Flor es /Ca st el la no s - H ea rs ay Co-c on sp ir at or s

To ad m it “ st at em en ts of co -co ns pi rat or s ag ai ns t a de fen da nt ‘the go ve rn m en t

m us t pr ov e by a pr ep on de ran ce of th e ev id en ce th at (1 ) a co ns pi racy ex is te d; (2 ) th e
de fen da nt an d th e de cl aran t were m em be rs of th e co ns pi racy; an d (3 ) th e de cl arat io n

was m ad e du rin g th e co ur se of an d in fu rth eran ce of th e co ns pi racy.’ ” W om ack

, 19 1

F.3 d at 88 3 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Gue rra, 11 3 F.3 d 80 9, 81 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 )); Fed

. R. Evi d. 80 1( d) (2 )(E). In Bel l, we pr ov id ed gu id an ce to di st ric t co ur ts fo r ru li ng on
ob jecti on s to th e ad m is si on o f o u t -o f-co ur t st at em en ts of co -co ns pi rat or s. W e

ou tl in ed a pr oc ed ur e th at in cl ud ed co nd it io na ll y a d m it ti ng th e ev id en ce an d th en

ru li ng on th e ob

jecti on s at th e cl os e of th e go ve rn m en t’s cas e. 57 3 F.2 d at 10 44

. The

pr oc ed ur al st ep s are m ad e ou ts id e o f t h e ju r y ’s pr es en ce, an d th e co ur t m ak es it s
ad m is si bi li ty ruli ng on th e rec or d b efo re s ub m it ti ng th e cas e to th e jury. Id

.

The tri al co ur t p ro pe rly fol lo wed th e Bel l p ro ced ur e, co nd it io na ll y ad m it ti ng

th e st at em en ts an d th en ta ki ng up th e ob jecti on s at th e cl os e of ev id en ce. The he ars ay

ev id en ce o bjec te d t o i nc lu de d t he fol lo win g:

1) Exh ib it s 3 2

, 40

, an d 42 co nt ai ne d ph on e reco rd s fro m Je ss ic a

Cen ic ero s’s ph on e. The ev id en ce was in tro du ced th ro ug h O f f i c e r

Fu rm an

. Cen ic ero s la te r te st ifi ed

, co nf irming th e in fo rm at io n su pp li ed
by the off ic er. 2) Exh ib it 50 co nt ai ne d Eng li sh tra ns la ti on s of co nv ers at io ns be twee n

Cas te ll an os an d Mu ril lo -Mo ra in whi c h th ey di sc us se d Cas te ll an os ’s

ro le in wiri ng m on ey , col le ct in g m on ey , and ob ta in in g n arco ti cs

. 3) Two st at em en ts by wit ne ss R a ch el Berr on es in whi ch sh e te st ifi ed to

st at em en ts by Mu ril lo

- M o r a w e re at is su e. In th e fir st st at em en t,

Berr on es te st ifi ed th at Mu ril lo -Mo ra sa id he was up se t wit h Cas te ll an os
be cau se he ha d gi ve n Cas te ll an os m on ey to wire to Mex ic o an d sh e to ld

hi m th e m on ey was st ol en

. He ex pr es se d to Be r r on es hi s vi ew th at

-1 9-Cas te ll an os li ed an d sp en t th e m on ey

. The se co nd st at em en t co nc ern ed

wha t Mu ril lo -Mo ra sa id reg ard in g Fl or es ’s i nv ol ve m en t in th e

or ga ni zat io n. The te st im on y in di cat ed Fl or es was Mur ill o- Mor a’ s dr ive r

un ti l th ey e n de d th ei r fri en ds hi p be cau se th ey were no t ag reei ng on
bu si ne ss an d M ur il lo -Mo ra wan te d t o g o h is sep arat e way

.

The tri al co ur t ov erru le d al l of th e ob jecti on s, co nc lu di ng th at a pr ep on de ran ce of th e

ev id en ce su pp or te d a fin di ng th at a co ns pi racy ex is te d, th e st at em en ts were m ad e by

co ns pi rat or s, an d th e st at em en ts pr ov id ed in fo rm at io n fu rth eri ng th e co ns pi racy. W e
ho ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n by ad m it ti ng th e ev id en ce un de r

ru le 80 1( d) (2 )(E). Acco rd Uni te d St at es v. Cam ach o, 55 5 F.3 d 69 5, 70 3 (8 th Ci r.

20 09 ) (rec og ni zi ng th at th e “ di st ric t co ur t m ad e th e ap pr op ria te Bell in qu iry an d we

can no t sa y th at it s fin di ng s are erro ne ou s” an d ho ld in g th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng

was no t an ab us e o f di sc ret io n)

.

B. Flo res - Lett ers

Dur in g cro ss -ex am in at io n of co -co ns pi rat or , Fran ces Gas ca, Fl or es ’s at to rn ey

as ke d ab ou t two le tt ers Gas ca se nt to Fl or es whi le sh e was in pr et ria l de te nt io n. The

go ve rn m en t was un aware of th e co rres po nd en ce be twee n Gas ca an d Fl or es be fo re th e

qu es ti on in g be ga n. W hi le an swe rin g th e qu es ti on s reg ard i n g he r le tt ers to Fl or es , Gas ca at te m

pt ed to ex pl ai n th at sh e wa s r e s p on di ng to co m m un ic at io ns sh e ha d

rece iv ed fro m Fl or es

. Her ex pl an at io n was tru nc at ed by d efen se co un se l. On

red ire ct

, th e go ve rn m en t’s co un se l as ke d Gas ca to ex pl ai n wha t sh e wan te d to ex pl ai n
du r i n g c r o ss -ex am in at io n. Gas ca be ga n, “ I wro te th at be cau se he wro te a le tt er to

Dan ie la Cas te ll an os sa y in g fo r m e to te ll ev erybod y th at

. . .,” at whi ch ti m e Fl or es ’s

co un se l i nt erru pt ed wit h a n o bjec ti on for lac k o f fo un da ti on

. The co ur t, ap pa ren tl y

se ns in g a fai lu re in th e f

o u n da ti on , di rect ed th e go ve rn m en t to “ br eak th at do wn a

li tt le bi t s o t ha t we d on ’t hav e an ob jecti on .” The fo ll owi ng red ire ct en su ed :

-2 0-Q. You were h ou se d wi th Ms . Cas te ll an os at s om e p oi nt in ti m e?

A. Yes

. Q. And du rin g th at ti m e di d sh e sh ow y ou le tt ers fro m Ju an Fl or es ?
A. Yes

. Q. And di d you read th os e le tt ers ?
A. Yes

. Q. And what di d h e wri te to Ms . Cas te ll an os in th os e le tt ers ?
A. To s ay

th at – MR. BELL: Object io n, fo un da ti on as t o wh o wro te th e le tt er. THE COURT: Objec ti on ov erru le d. Yo u m ay an swe r. A. To sa y th at – to te ll th em th at I was – he was on ly ta ki ng m e to D

to ha ve se x wit h an d th at he was jus t m y rid e an d t ha t t he re was

no in vo lv em en t o f m et h. Q. So Mr. Fl or es wro te Ms

. Cas te ll an os a le tt er tryin g to te ll y ou wha t t o s ay

in co ur t t od ay ?
A. Tha t was a whi le ag o, b ut , y es

.

Gas ca th en te st ifi ed th at sh e s a w th at le tt er wit h he r own ey es

. Dur in g recr os sex am in at io n, Fl or es ’s att or ne y eli ci te d t he fol lo win g t es ti m on y :

Q. Now, as I un de rs ta nd y ou r res po ns e to Ms

. W il li am s’s qu es ti on s ab ou t writ in g th is le tt er to Ju an , y ou in di cat ed th at y ou di d no t

rece iv e an y le tt er fro m Ju an ; it was so m eb od y el se who al le ge dl y

rece iv ed it ?
A. Yes

. Q. And whe n y o u

– h as Ju an ev er writ te n to y ou ot he r th an – ha s Ju an ev er wri tt en a le tt er t o you ?
A. He se nt m e a ca rd

. Q. W he n?
A. I do n’t re m em

be r, bu t i t was m ay

be Feb ru ary. Q. And wha t di d he – di d he han dwr it e an y th in g on it or di d he j us t si gn it ?
A. He wro te – I can ’t r ecal l ex act ly wh at he wro t e , bu t he si gn ed it

as well

. * * *

-2 1-Q. Oka y

. And ho w m an y ti m es di d y ou se e th is le tt er th at is al le ge d

to ha ve be en sen t b y

Ju an to Ms . Cas te ll an os ?
A. Lik e o nc e o r twi ce.

* * * Q. A n d w h e n y ou sa w th is le tt er in th e jail

, th at was in th e Li n n Co un ty Jail ?
A. Yes

. Q. W he n you saw i t, was th e en ve lo pe alr ead y op en ?
A. Yes

. Q. Oka y . W ere you pre se nt when th e en ve lo pe was o pe ne d?
A. W as I? No. Q. Si nc e y ou ha d n ev er s een an y th in g t ha t Ju an ha d wri tt en be fo re, I’m as su m in g y ou co ul dn ’t id en ti fy whe th er th at was hi s writ in g

or no t i n t ha t l et te r, co rrec t.
A. Co rrec t. Q. And y ou ha ve no id ea if th at was wha t w a s i n th e le tt er – in th e

en ve lo pe whe n it cam e or whe th er so m eb od y r e pl aced it wit h

so m et hi ng els e?
A. W el l, I s a w l e t te rs pr io r to th at th at he wro te th at ha d th e sa m e writ in g. Q. Fro m

who ?
A. Dan ie la , fro m

Ju an

. Q. Bu t you n ev er i nd ep en de nt ly obt ai ne d h is writ in g t o v eri fy ?
A. No. Q. And y ou ’re cert ai nl y no t a h an dwr it in g e xp ert ?
A. W ha t? Q. You ’re cert ai nl y

no t a h an dwr it in g e xp ert ?
A. No.

By th e ti m e Fl or es was do ne wit h hi s re cro ss -ex am in at io n o f Gas ca, h e h ad el ic it ed

th e ne ces sa ry fo un da ti on

. The te st imo n y in fo rm ed th e jury th at Gas ca was no t a

ha nd writ in g ex pe rt an d pr ov id ed a ba si s fo r Gas ca’s la y be li ef th at th e le tt ers were

fro m Fl or es

. The jury th en ha d th e in fo rm at io n it ne ed ed to ap pr op ria te ly weig h th e

te st im o n y. Ev e n if th e ad m is si on of th e te st im on y were th e res ul t of an ab us e of

di sc ret io n, th e erro r wou ld be ha rm le ss co ns id eri ng th e m as s of ev id en ce su pp or ti ng

-2 2-Fl or es ’s co nv ic ti on an d th e la ck of an y in di cat io n th at Fl or es ’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s were

pr ejud ic ed . E.g., Mel to n, 8 70 F.3d at 8 37

.

VI. SENTE NCING

In rev ie win g a di st ric t co ur t’s s en te nc e we “ fir st en su re t ha t t he di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d no si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al erro r.” Uni te d St at es v. Sal azar -Ale m an , 74 1

F.3 d 87 8, 88 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Feem st er, 57 2 F.3 d 45 5, 46 1
(8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc )). “ W e th en co ns id er whe th er th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt iv el y

reas on ab le .” Id

. “ Reg ard le ss of whe th er th e f i na l se nt en ce is in si de or ou ts id e th e
Gui de li ne s ran ge , we rev ie w a de fen da nt ’s se nt en ce un de r a de f e ren ti al ab us e-o fdi sc ret io n st an da rd .” Uni te d St a t e s v

. Bo y ki n, 85 0 F.3 d 98 5, 98 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 17 )
(ci ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Goo da le , 73 8 F .3d 91 7, 9 24 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3) ).

A. Flor es

Fl or es arg ue s th at hi s se nt en ce is su bs ta nt ia ll y un reas on ab le be cau se th e co ur t

at tri bu te d im

pr op er am ou nt s of m et ha m ph e t a mi n e t o hi m , de ni ed hi s m ot io n fo r
do wnwar d de pa rtu re, an d fai le d to pr op erl y co ns id er hi s hi st or y an d ch arac te r. At

se nt en ci ng , th e co ur t in fo rm ed th e pa rti es th at it co ns id ered ev ery fact or un de r 18

U.S

. C

. § 3 55 3( a). Bas ed on th e ev id en ce at tri al

, th e co ur t cal cu la te d th at Fl or es

“ sh ou ld be he ld acco un ta bl e fo r 2,2 65 .9 gr am s of ic e m et ha m ph et am in e, res ul ti ng in

a sc or e of 36 .” The co ur t th en fo u n d o b s t r u c ti on of jus ti ce be cau se Fl or es tri ed to

in flu en ce th e te st im on y of a wit ne ss an d he us ed a fal se na m e an d bi rth cert ifi cat e in

an at te m pt to co n fu se la w en fo rcem en t. Thi s res ul te d in a two -p oi nt up ward

ad jus tm en t t o l ev el 38

. Fl or es ha d a cri m in al hi st or y of I. The Gui de li ne ran ge for

th e of fen se was 23 5 to 29 3 m on th s. The co ur t se nt en ced Fl or es to th e s t a t u to ry

m a x i mu m o f 2 4 0 m on th s, a se nt en ce ne ar th e lo w en d of th e Gui de li ne ran ge

. In

ex pl ai ni ng th e se nt en ce th e co ur t no te d Fl or es ’s s ub st an ti al cri m in al be ha vi or ev en
whi le un de r co ur t s up erv is io n a nd hi s h ig h ri sk to reci di va te

.

-2 3-The se nt en ce is wit hi n th e co rr ec tly -cal cu la te d Gui de li ne ran ge

. Not hi ng in th e

reco rd su pp or ts a fin di ng th at th e se nt en ce is su bs ta nt ia ll y un reas on ab le

. The co ur t

di d n ot ab us e it s d is cret io n i n s en te nc in g F lo res to 24 0 m on th s’ in carc erat io n.

B. Cas tel la no s

Cas te ll an os ch al le ng es he r 24 0- m on th se nt en c e on th ree gr ou nd s. Sh e fir st

as se rts th at th e co ur t at tri bu te d to o m uc h m et ha m

ph et am in e to he r. Sh e al so co nt en ds

th at th e co ur t m is cal cu la te d he r cri m in al hi st or y sc or e. Fi na ll y , sh e arg ue s th at th e

co ur t erre d by fai li ng to de crea se he r of fen se le ve l by two po in ts

, pu rs ua nt to
U.S.S.G. § 3 B1 .2, as a m in or pa rti ci pa nt

.

At se nte nc ing the dis tr ic t co ur t heard arg um en ts reg ard in g th e ev id en ce rel at in g

to th e am ou nt of m et ha m ph et am in e at tri bu ta bl e to Cas te ll an os , in cl ud in g ev id en ce

th at Cas te ll an os ha d de li ve red fiv e po u n d s o f meth am ph et am in e on on e oc cas io n.
The reco rd su pp or ts th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at Cas te ll an os be he ld acco un ta bl e fo r

ov er 4.5 ki lo gr am s of m et ha m ph et am in e (“ ic e”), sp eci fic al ly 4,8 19 .5 gr am s, pu tt in g

th e ba se of

fen se le ve l at 38

. The reco rd su pp or ts th e co ur t’s de ci si on th at Cas te ll an os
d i d no t m eet he r bu rd en of pr oo f fo r th e two -le ve l red uc ti on fo r m in o r r o l e i n a

co ns pi racy. The co ur t fu rth er no te d th at th e cal cu la ti on of 24 0 m on th s wou ld be th e

sa m e ev en wit h th e red uc ti on

. The st at ut or y m ax im um of 24 0 m on th s is well be lo w
th e Gui de li ne ran ge of 29 2 t o 3 6 5 mo n th s. Not hi ng in th e reco rd su pp or ts a

co nc lu si on th at th e se nt en ce i s s ub st an ti al ly unr eas on ab le . The cou rt di d no t ab us e

it s d is cret io n i n s en te nc in g C as te ll an os to 24 0 m on th s’ in carc erat io n.

VII

. CONCLUSI ON

W e aff irm th e jud gm en ts of t he di st ric t co ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2 4-