Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/ca5/c604806/united-states-v-amy-ralston-pofahl-charles-t-nunn-and-randy-white
Timestamp: 2020-03-29 06:26:43
Document Index: 362322100

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1867', '§ 1867', '§ 1867', '§ 1867', '§ 841', '§ 952', '§ 3006', '§ 3006', '§ 3006', '§ 3006', '§ 3006', '§ 3006', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3']

United States v. Amy Ralston Pofahl, Charles T. Nunn, and Randy White, Fifth Circuit, US Court of Appeals Cases, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
United States v. Amy Ralston Pofahl, Charles T. Nunn, and Randy White , 990 F.2d 1456 ( 1993 )
Randy White claims that (a) his confession should have been suppressed, because it was made without the benefit of the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), and (b) the district court at sentencing held him accountable for an excessive quantity of MDMA.
Pofahl, Nunn, and White contend that the district court erred by overruling White's objection, premised on Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), to the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes to remove all of the African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans from the jury. The Equal Protection Clause3 forbids a prosecutor to exercise peremptory challenges against prospective jurors solely on account of their race. Id. at 89, 106 S.Ct. at 1719. To show that the prosecutor violated the Equal Protection Clause by her use of peremptory strikes, a defendant must first demonstrate that the facts raise an inference that the strikes were racially motivated. Id. at 93-94, 106 S.Ct. at 1721. Once the defendant makes that prima facie case, the prosecutor has the burden of showing that the strikes were based on "permissible racially neutral selection criteria." See id. at 94, 106 S.Ct. at 1721. After the prosecutor offers a racially neutral explanation, the district court must determine whether the defendant has established purposeful racial discrimination. See id. at 98, 106 S.Ct. at 1724.
Because only White objected to the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, see id. at 74-77, the government argues that Pofahl and Nunn are barred from raising a Batson claim on appeal. See Brief for United States of America at 26 n. 13. Because a timely objection is an essential prerequisite to a Batson claim, we agree that neither Nunn nor Pofahl is entitled to assert such a claim. See Wilkerson v. Collins, 950 F.2d 1054, 1063 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that failure to make timely Batson objection at trial was "a constitutional bar" to Batson claim), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Mar. 18, 1992) (No. 91-7669); Thomas v. Moore, 866 F.2d 803, 805 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 840, 110 S. Ct. 124, 107 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1989); Jones v. Butler, 864 F.2d 348, 369 (5th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1075, 109 S. Ct. 2090, 104 L. Ed. 2d 653 (1989); United States v. Forbes, 816 F.2d 1006, 1011 (5th Cir.1987); United States v. Erwin, 793 F.2d 656, 667 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 991, 107 S. Ct. 589, 93 L. Ed. 2d 590 (1986).
White's Batson argument lacks merit entirely. "Where ... the [district court] has entertained and ruled on a defendant's motion charging a Batson violation, we review only [its] 'finding of discrimination vel non.' " United States v. Terrazas-Carrasco, 861 F.2d 93, 94 (5th Cir.1988) (quoting United States v. Forbes, 816 F.2d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1987)). The district court's determination whether the prosecutor's strikes are racially motivated is purely factual, and largely turns on an evaluation of the prosecutor's credibility. Hernandez v. New York, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 1869, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1991). We review the district court's finding concerning the presence vel non of purposeful racial discrimination under the "clearly erroneous" standard. See Hernandez, --- U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1871; Terrazas-Carrasco, 861 F.2d at 94. We will not find a district court's ruling to be clearly erroneous unless we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. United States v. Mitchell, 964 F.2d 454, 457-58 (5th Cir.1992). The prosecutor's explanations of his peremptory strikes--focusing on employment, economic status, attentiveness, and demeanor--were certainly non-racial. Furthermore, White does not argue, and the record does not indicate, that the prosecutor's explanations lacked credibility. Therefore, the district court's finding that the prosecutor's peremptory strikes were not racially motivated was not clearly erroneous, and White is not entitled to relief.
28 U.S.C. § 1867(a). By failing to act timely as directed by § 1867(a), a defendant waives her objection under the Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e) ("The procedures prescribed by this section shall be the exclusive means by which a person accused of a Federal crime ... may challenge any jury on the ground that such jury was not selected in conformity with the provisions of this title."); United States v. Ballard, 779 F.2d 287, 295 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1109, 106 S. Ct. 1518, 89 L. Ed. 2d 916 (1986); United States v. Green, 742 F.2d 609, 612 (11th Cir.1984). Because none of the appellants complied with § 1867(a), they are barred from raising a claim under the Jury Selection and Service Act on appeal.
Pofahl, Nunn, and White also appear to claim that they were denied their Sixth Amendment right to a jury selected from a pool that represents a fair cross-section of the community. See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 528, 95 S. Ct. 692, 697, 42 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1975). In order to state a claim of that sort, the appellants must show that a distinctive group is generally and systematically excluded from jury venires. See Timmel v. Phillips, 799 F.2d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir.1986). The appellants have not alleged, much less demonstrated, general and systematic exclusion of a distinctive group from jury venires in the Western District of Texas. None of the appellants is entitled to reversal on the basis of their complaints regarding the selection of the jury.
"In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether, viewing the evidence and the inferences that may be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational jury could have found the essential elements of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt."7 United States v. Pruneda-Gonzalez, 953 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 2952, 119 L. Ed. 2d 575 (1992). "It is not necessary that the evidence exclude every rational hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent with every conclusion except guilt, provided a reasonable trier of fact could find the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. "We accept all credibility choices that tend to support the jury's verdict." United States v. Anderson, 933 F.2d 1261, 1274 (5th Cir.1991).
In order to prove that a defendant conspired to distribute and possess with intent to distribute MDMA, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846,8 the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) there was a conspiracy9 to distribute and possess with intent to distribute MDMA; (2) the defendant knew about the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant voluntarily joined in the conspiracy. See United States v. Hernandez-Palacios, 838 F.2d 1346, 1348 (5th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Jackson, 700 F.2d 181, 185 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 842, 104 S. Ct. 139, 78 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1983)). The government must prove the same basic elements--existence of a conspiracy, knowledge, and voluntary participation--in order to convict an individual of conspiring to import MDMA in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a), 963.10 See id.; United States v. Williams-Hendricks, 805 F.2d 496, 502 (5th Cir.1986). "No evidence of overt conduct is required. A conspiracy agreement may be tacit, and the trier of fact may infer agreement from circumstantial evidence." Hernandez-Palacios, 838 F.2d at 1348 (citations omitted).
Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury could have reasonably concluded that Pofahl knew of, and entered into the conspiracy to import MDMA. See United States v. Mitchell, 777 F.2d 248, 261 (5th Cir.1985) (finding that evidence supported conviction for conspiracy to import drugs, where the defendant had knowledge of the origin of the drug shipments, participated in weighing and distributing the drugs, and collected and disbursed funds in connection with the importation), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184, 106 S. Ct. 2921, 91 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1986); see also United States v. Rojas-Martinez, 968 F.2d 415, 420-21 (5th Cir.) (finding circumstantial evidence sufficient to support conviction for conspiracy to import marijuana), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 828, 121 L. Ed. 2d 698 (1992); United States v. Gibson, 963 F.2d 708, 711 (5th Cir.1992) (upholding conviction for importation of marijuana where circumstantial evidence--such as defendant's nervousness and inability to explain her unusual conduct--was sufficient to support finding that defendant knew marijuana was present in side panel of her car).
White points out that he did not know the top-level organizers of the conspiracy, such as Charles Pofahl and Morris Key. However, in order for White to be convicted of conspiracy it was not necessary for the government to prove that he knew all of the members of the conspiracy. In Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 68 S. Ct. 248, 92 L. Ed. 154 (1947), Blumenthal was convicted of conspiracy to sell whiskey at a price in excess of the price set by the government. See id. The Supreme Court found the evidence sufficient to support Blumenthal's conviction, even though Blumenthal had no knowledge of the identity or participation of the individual who actually owned the whiskey, see id. at 556-57, 68 S.Ct. at 256:
Id. The evidence here amply demonstrated the essential nature of the conspiracy--a network of agreements to traffick in MDMA--as well as White's participation in the conspiracy. The government was not required to prove that White knew the top-level organizers of the conspiracy. See id.; United States v. Alvarez, 625 F.2d 1196, 1198 (5th Cir.1980) (en banc) (citing Blumenthal ), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 938, 101 S. Ct. 2017, 68 L. Ed. 2d 324 (1981).
Pofahl argues that the district court committed reversible error by denying her motion15 without first conducting an ex parte inquiry to determine whether she was entitled to the relief requested. When a criminal defendant moves under § 3006A(e) for psychiatric expert assistance, the district court is required to conduct an ex parte inquiry to determine whether the requested relief is appropriate. See United States v. Hamlet, 456 F.2d 1284, 1284 (5th Cir.1972) (holding that the district court "erred in denying the § 3006A(e) motion without conducting the ex parte inquiry required by the statute"); United States v. Theriault, 440 F.2d 713, 715 (5th Cir.1971) (same). However, the district court's failure to conduct the inquiry required by § 3006A(e) does not automatically warrant reversal in this case. Where, as here, a party fails to object to an alleged error before the district court, we generally will not disturb the district court's ruling, unless plain error is shown. See, e.g., United States v. Surasky, 974 F.2d 19, 20 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that plain error standard applied where criminal defendant failed to object to allegedly erroneous application of the sentencing guidelines); United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 49-51 (5th Cir.) (declining to review the merits of appellant's sentencing guidelines claim, where the alleged error was not raised at trial, and no plain error was found), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 2032, 114 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1991). Plain error is "error so obvious and substantial that failure to notice it would affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings" and would "result in manifest injustice." Lopez, 923 F.2d at 50; see also United States v. Bi-Co Pavers, 741 F.2d 730, 735 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Howton, 688 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1982).
We have not previously applied the plain error standard where a criminal defendant failed to object to the district court's failure to conduct the ex parte inquiry required by 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e). Neither Hamlet nor Theriault mentioned whether the defendant made an objection. However, we now choose to follow the Tenth Circuit in applying the plain error standard in this context. See United States v. Greschner, 802 F.2d 373, 380 (10th Cir.1986) (applying plain error standard where defendant failed to object to the presence of government attorneys at hearing on § 3006A(e) motion for appointment of penologist), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 908, 107 S. Ct. 1353, 94 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987).
In order to prevail on her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Pofahl must show that (1) her counsel's performance was deficient, and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced her defense. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). We agree that counsel's performance in this case was deficient. In United States v. Edwards, 488 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir.1974), a case presenting facts very similar to these, we held that counsel's performance was ineffective. In Edwards a motion was filed under § 3006A(e), and the district court ordered a psychiatric examination. See id. at 1159. After performing the examination, the psychiatrist reported his findings to the prosecution as well as the defense. See id. As in the instant case, defense counsel failed to object, and we held that Edwards did not receive "counsel reasonably likely to render and rendering reasonably effective assistance." See id. at 1162, 1165. In light of Edwards we conclude that Pofahl's counsel's performance was deficient.
Where a district court denies a motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant, and the motion is premised on an alleged lack of probable cause to support the warrant, we review the denial of the motion to determine (1) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S. Ct. 3405, 82 L. Ed. 2d 677 (1984); and (2) whether the warrant was supported by probable cause. United States v. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d 317, 320 (5th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Webster, 960 F.2d 1301, 1307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 355, 121 L. Ed. 2d 269 (1992). However, it is unnecessary to address the probable cause issue if the good-faith exception applies, unless the case involves a " 'novel question of law whose resolution is necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.' " Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 264, 103 S. Ct. 2317, 2346, 76 L. Ed. 2d 527 (1983) (White, J., concurring); Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320 (quoting Gates ). Because Pofahl's Fourth Amendment argument does not present a novel question of law, we address the good-faith issue first.
Evidence obtained by officers in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance upon a search warrant is admissible, even though the warrant was unsupported by probable cause. See Leon, 468 U.S. at 922-23, 104 S.Ct. at 3420; Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 320. The evidence is not admissible where the warrant is based upon an affidavit " 'so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.' " Leon, 468 U.S. at 923, 104 S.Ct. at 3421 (quoting Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 610-611, 95 S. Ct. 2254, 2265-66, 45 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring in part)). We often refer to an affidavit of that sort as a "bare bones affidavit."18 See United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir.1988). Where a warrant is supported by more than a bare bones affidavit, an officer may rely in good faith on the warrant's validity. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321; United States v. Pigrum, 922 F.2d 249, 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 2064, 114 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1991). We review de novo the reasonableness of an officer's reliance upon a warrant issued by a magistrate. Satterwhite, 980 F.2d at 321 (citing United States v. Wylie, 919 F.2d 969, 974 (5th Cir.1990)).
Second, Pofahl's argument has little weight in light of our decision in United States v. Webster, 960 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 355, 121 L. Ed. 2d 269 (1992). Webster argued that evidence seized at his residence should have been suppressed because the affidavit supporting the search warrant failed to establish probable cause. See id. at 1306. The affidavit alleged that Webster sold drugs at his residence 18 months before the issuance of the warrant. See id. The more recent drug sales alleged in the affidavit occurred at other locations. See id. at 1307. We affirmed the district court's admission of the seized evidence, under the Leon good-faith exception:
Pofahl also contends that the district court erred by calculating her sentence on the basis of the full amount of MDMA involved in the conspiracy--1.4 million grams. Pofahl argues that it was not reasonably foreseeable to her that the conspiracy would involve such a large quantity of MDMA, and therefore the district court should not have taken that amount of drugs into account in determining her base offense level for the drug conspiracy counts.24 The district court assigned Pofahl a base offense level of 38 based on 1.4 million grams of MDMA.25 Pofahl failed to object to the amount of MDMA used to calculate her base offense level. See Letter from Attorney John M. Hurley to U.S. Probation Officer William H. Moore, attached to Presentence Report, United States of America v. Amy Ralston Pofahl, No. W-91-CR-038 (Pofahl's objections to Presentence Report); Supp. Record on Appeal, vol. 12 (Pofahl's sentencing hearing). Because Pofahl failed to object below, the district court's ruling will be reviewed only for plain error. See United States v. Hatchett, 923 F.2d 369, 376 (5th Cir.1991) (applying plain error standard where defendant failed to object to district court's consideration of a quantity of cocaine in calculating his base offense level). Plain error is "error so obvious and substantial that failure to notice it would affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of [the] judicial proceedings" and would "result in manifest injustice." United States v. Lopez, 923 F.2d 47, 50 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 2032, 114 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1991) (citations omitted); see also United States v. Bi-Co Pavers, 741 F.2d 730, 735 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Howton, 688 F.2d 272, 278 (5th Cir.1982).
Because Amy Pofahl's role in the conspiracy involved negotiating the price of MDMA, recruiting other members of the conspiracy, and directing the actions of others in furtherance of the conspiracy, the district court's characterization of Pofahl as a manager of the conspiracy does not leave us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. See United States v. Peters, 978 F.2d 166, 170 (5th Cir.1992) (upholding enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) where defendant recruited others to take part in the offense); United States v. Liu, 960 F.2d 449, 456 (5th Cir.) (holding that, in determining whether defendant is a manager or supervisor, district court should consider recruitment of participants in the offense, the exercise of control over others, and the exercise of decision-making authority), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 418, 121 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1992); Alvarado, 898 F.2d at 993-94 (upholding enhancement under § 3B1.1(c) where defendant negotiated drug deals, directed the actions of others, and dealt with the proceeds of the criminal enterprise); U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. (n. 3) (recommending that district court consider "the exercise of decision making authority, ... the recruitment of accomplices, ... and the degree of control and authority exercised over others" in applying § 3B1.1). The district court's finding was not clearly erroneous.
Pofahl next contends that the district court erred by enhancing her sentence as a result of an erroneous finding that she attempted to obstruct justice. Section 3C1.1 of the federal sentencing guidelines provides for a two level increase in a defendant's offense level "[i]f the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense." See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 3C1.1 (Nov. 1991). The district court imposed an increase of two levels because, at the time of her arrest Pofahl was living part-time in Florida under an assumed name, and because she wrote a letter to her husband, asking him not to provide the authorities with information which would incriminate her. Where a district court enhances a defendant's offense level on account of an obstruction of justice, the district court's finding of obstructive conduct is reviewed for clear error. See United States v. Pierce, 893 F.2d 669, 677 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Rivera, 879 F.2d 1247, 1254 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 998, 110 S. Ct. 554, 107 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1989); United States v. Franco-Torres, 869 F.2d 797, 800 (5th Cir.1989).
Denial of a Rule 14 motion for a severance is reviewable only for abuse of discretion. See Zafiro v. United States, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S. Ct. 933, 939, 122 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1993) (holding that determination of the risk of prejudice from joint trials, and of the necessary remedy to avoid such prejudice, are entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court); United States v. Arzola-Amaya, 867 F.2d 1504, 1516 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 933, 110 S. Ct. 322, 107 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1989); United States v. Manzella, 782 F.2d 533, 540 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1123, 106 S. Ct. 1991, 90 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1986). "Reversal is warranted only when the appellant can demonstrate compelling prejudice against which the trial court was unable to afford protection." Arzola-Amaya, 867 F.2d at 1516; United States v. Harrelson, 754 F.2d 1153, 1174 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1034, 106 S. Ct. 599, 88 L. Ed. 2d 578 (1985). The rule, rather than the exception, is that persons indicted together should be tried together, especially in conspiracy cases. See Arzola-Amaya, 867 F.2d at 1516; United States v. McGuire, 608 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1092, 100 S. Ct. 1060, 62 L. Ed. 2d 782 (1980).
Nunn claims he was entitled to a severance because his involvement in the drug trafficking as a "mere mule" was extremely limited.34 Nunn's absence from particular episodes in the conspiracy does not mandate severance. See United States v. Rocha, 916 F.2d 219, 228 (5th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S. Ct. 2057, 114 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1991). Nunn asserts that the amount of evidence offered against him was far less than the evidence offered against his co-defendants,35 but we have held that a quantitative disparity in the evidence "is clearly insufficient in itself to justify severance." Harrelson, 754 F.2d at 1175. Furthermore, Nunn asserts that the reputations of the co-defendants and evidence of their past crimes created a prejudicial spillover effect. We have also held that the mere presence of a spillover effect does not ordinarily warrant severance. See Rocha, 916 F.2d at 228; Harrelson, 754 F.2d at 1178. Moreover, in the case at bar the district court properly instructed the jury to limit evidence to the appropriate defendant.36 "[J]uries are presumed to follow their instructions." Zafiro, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 939. Consequently, the jury was able to separate the evidence and properly apply it only to those against whom it was offered. Because Nunn did not suffer compelling prejudice against which the district court was unable to afford protection, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to sever his case.
Nunn also asserts that the 500,000 tablets awaiting importation from Guatemala are not attributable to him because he withdrew from the conspiracy. Witness testimony at trial placed the 500,000 MDMA tablets in Guatemala in February of 1989, the same month Nunn scheduled a trip to Guatemala to import MDMA tablets. See id. vol. 10, at 774. After learning that a co-conspirator was arrested, Nunn cancelled his trip to Guatemala, but this did not end his involvement in the conspiracy. See id. vol. 9, at 689. We have held that involvement in a conspiracy is presumed to continue and will not be terminated until the co-conspirator acts "affirmatively to defeat or disavow the purpose of the conspiracy." United States v. Devine, 934 F.2d 1325, 1335 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 954, 117 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1992). Nunn's decision to cancel his trip to Guatemala in the face of possible arrest is hardly an affirmative action to defeat the conspiracy. Because Nunn was a member of the conspiracy when the disputed 1 million tablets were imported or when importation was attempted, the district court's finding of reasonable foreseeability was not clearly erroneous. Therefore, we hold that the district court properly calculated Nunn's base offense level.
Nunn contends that he was entitled to a downward adjustment, under § 3B1.2 of the sentencing guidelines, for minimal or minor participation in the offense.37 Nunn claims that he was a "mere mule" possessing less knowledge and understanding of the conspiracy than the average participant, and therefore he was a minimal or minor participant in the offense. Section 3B1.2 is designed to reduce a sentence when the defendant is substantially less culpable than the average participant in the offense. See United States v. Buenrostro, 868 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 923, 110 S. Ct. 1957, 109 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1990). The district court denied Nunn's request for the downward adjustment, stating that it "[did not] believe Mr. Nunn was either a minor or a minimal participant." See Supp. Record on Appeal, vol. 13, at 14. A judicial fact-finding that a defendant is not a minimal or minor participant will enjoy the protection of the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Mejia-Orosco, 867 F.2d 216, 221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 924, 109 S. Ct. 3257, 106 L. Ed. 2d 602 (1989).
We have held that a " 'mule' or transporter of drugs may not be entitled to minor or minimal status." United States v. Bethley, 973 F.2d 396, 401 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 1323, 122 L. Ed. 2d 709 (1993); Buenrostro, 868 F.2d at 137-38. Nunn's role as a courier was not limited to a single delivery, but included a second delivery attempt which was later aborted. Additionally, Nunn's role was not confined to that of a mule. Nunn recruited an individual named "David" to transport an MDMA shipment from Guatemala into the United States, and received large payments for his efforts. See Supp. Record on Appeal, vol. 9, at 678, 684-87. Consequently, the district court's finding that Nunn's role was not minimal or minor was not clearly erroneous, and Nunn was not entitled to an adjustment under § 3B1.2.
* Randy White contends that the district court erred by allowing IRS Special Agent Gary Terrell to testify regarding statements made by White during an interview in White's home. White argues that his rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated, because the self-incriminating statements admitted into evidence were made by White without the benefit of the warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
The district court properly denied White's motion, because White was not entitled to Miranda warnings. Miranda requires that the warnings be given prior to a custodial interrogation. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. at 1624, 1630; see also Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 110 S. Ct. 2394, 110 L. Ed. 2d 243 (1990); United States v. Harrell, 894 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 834, 111 S. Ct. 101, 112 L. Ed. 2d 72 (1990). The district court correctly held that White was not in custody when he confessed to Gallman and Terrell. A person is " 'in custody' for Miranda purposes when placed under formal arrest or when a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have understood the situation to constitute a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest." United States v. Bengivenga, 845 F.2d 593, 596 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 924, 109 S. Ct. 306, 102 L. Ed. 2d 325 (1988); see also United States v. Harrell, 894 F.2d 120, 123 (5th Cir.1990) (citing Bengivenga ). The record does not indicate that White was under arrest or that he was subject to a restraint of his freedom comparable to formal arrest. The record demonstrates that White spoke to the agents in his home, of his own volition. We agree with the district court's conclusion that White was never in custody, and therefore was not entitled to suppression of the statements which he made without the benefit of Miranda warnings. See Harrell, 894 F.2d at 125 ("A reasonable person, questioned within his own home, would not suffer 'a restraint on freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.' ").
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment pertains to the states, but Batson applies to federal, as well as state, criminal cases. See Brown v. United States, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S. Ct. 708, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649 (1987) (federal criminal conviction reversed on the basis of Batson )
The Supreme Court contemplated that district courts faced with Batson objections would decide whether the facts supported an inference of racial discrimination. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. If the district court determined that the facts supported that inference, the government would then be required to come forward with race neutral explanations for its peremptory strikes. See id. Here the district court did not explicitly find that the facts supported an inference of racial discrimination. See Supp. Record on Appeal, vol. 7, at 74. The district court responded to the apparent Batson objection by immediately asking the prosecutor for race-neutral explanations for his peremptory challenges. See id. However, "[t]his departure from the normal course of proceeding need not concern us.... Once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot." Hernandez v. New York, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 1866, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1991); see also United States v. Broussard, 987 F.2d 215, 220 n. 4 (5th Cir.1993) (declining to decide whether defendant had established prima facie case of racial discrimination, where district court required explanation for peremptory strikes)
A conspiracy consists of "an agreement by two or more persons to commit one or more unlawful acts and an overt act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Romeros, 600 F.2d 1104, 1106 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1077, 100 S. Ct. 1025, 62 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1980)
Randy White claims that his conviction must be reversed because certain evidence admitted at trial was unconstitutionally seized from Amy Pofahl's Jaguar automobile outside the Yawl Street residence in Marina del Rey. Because White has no standing to object to the search, his argument fails. An individual who has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a vehicle lacks standing to challenge a search of that vehicle. See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148, 99 S. Ct. 421, 433, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978); United States v. Johnston, 685 F.2d 934, 939 (5th Cir.1982) (citing Rakas ). We have found that an individual lacks standing to object to the search of a vehicle where he asserts no ownership interest in the vehicle. See United States v. Harrison, 918 F.2d 469, 472 (5th Cir.1990) (citing Rakas and Johnston ); Johnston, 685 F.2d at 939. White concedes that he "did not know ... Pofahl and knew nothing of her residence in Marina del Rey, California or her automobile." Brief for White at 15. Clearly White lacks standing to contest the search of that automobile
The term "manager" is not defined by the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and comment. As that term has been applied in this Circuit, it implies, inter alia, recruitment of participants in the offense, the exercise of control over others, and the exercise of decision-making authority. See United States v. Peters, 978 F.2d 166, 170 (5th Cir.1992); United States v. Liu, 960 F.2d 449, 456 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S. Ct. 418, 121 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1992)
DocketNumber： 92-8104
Citation Numbers： 990 F.2d 1456
United States v. George Byron Hamlet , 456 F.2d 1284 ( 1972 )
United States v. Walter J. Chavis, Jr. , 476 F.2d 1137 ( 1973 )
United States v. McArthur Edwards, AKA Edwards McArthur and ... , 488 F.2d 1154 ( 1974 )
United States v. Eduardo Romeros , 600 F.2d 1104 ( 1979 )
United States v. Dennis Edward McGuire and Benjamin Rivera , 608 F.2d 1028 ( 1980 )
United States v. Manuel Juan Alvarez , 625 F.2d 1196 ( 1980 )
United States v. Michael L. Green , 634 F.2d 222 ( 1981 )
United States v. Ted Allan Johnston , 685 F.2d 934 ( 1982 )
United States v. Wilder ( 1994 )
United States v. Polk ( 1995 )
United States v. Edwards ( 1995 )