Opinion ID: 173184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issues Specific to Ramirez

Text: Ramirez argues the search exceeded the scope of Barraza-Martinez’s consent and that there was no probable cause to continue the search at a new location. The scope of Deputy Bentley’s search did not exceed the scope of the consent given by Barraza-Martinez. If an officer indicates his intent is to search for drugs or contraband, a motorist’s consent “certainly implies that the officer could look wherever drugs might be hidden.” United States v. Ramstad, 308 F.3d 1139, 1147 (10th Cir. 2002). Because Barraza-Martinez consented to the search and offered to open the truck’s rear cargo door immediately after Deputy Bentley asked for consent to search specifically for drugs, no credible argument exists that the hidden compartment, where the cocaine was discovered, was not within the scope of Barraza-Martinez’s consent. Furthermore, once Deputy Bentley determined there was a wire under the truck, coupled with all the other information he obtained, he had probable cause to believe the truck contained a hidden compartment and did not need BarrazaMartinez’s consent to move the truck and search it further. “[V]isual evidence of a hidden compartment, without more, may provide probable cause to conduct or expand a search.” United States v. Ledesma, 447 F.3d 1307, 1317 (10th Cir. 2006). The Tenth Circuit imposes two requirements to establish probable cause: (1) “the likelihood that there really is a hidden compartment,” and (2) “the -14- likelihood that a vehicle with a hidden compartment would, in the circumstances, be secreting contraband.” United States v. Jurado-Vallejo, 380 F.3d 1235, 1238 (10th Cir. 2004). The Jurado-Vallejo decision noted the second factor is easily met when common sense dictates a particular vehicle’s hidden compartment would be highly likely to contain contraband. Id. at 1238-39 (“[I]t is hard to conceive of a legitimate use for a large hidden storage compartment in any vehicle, let alone one with the cargo space of a Ford Expedition.”). Both requirements are easily met in this case. First, the vehicle and Barraza-Martinez’s story matched both the information in the BOLO and the additional information provided by the Georgia trooper. This established a strong likelihood that the vehicle contained a hidden compartment. Second, the record reveals no legitimate reasons for the defendants’ box truck to be fitted with such a hidden storage compartment. As a result, even if there was no consent to move the vehicle and continue the search, Deputy Bentley had probable cause to search the vehicle from the moment he confirmed the location of a wire below where he suspected the hidden compartment was located.
Ramirez argues the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury’s verdict is reviewed de novo. United States v. McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2000). On appeal, -15- this court asks “only whether taking the evidence—both direct and circumstantial, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom—in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted). In reaching its verdict, a jury is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from direct or circumstantial evidence. “[A]n inference must be more than speculation and conjecture to be reasonable, and caution must be taken that the conviction not be obtained by piling inference on inference.” United States v. Jones, 44 F.3d 860, 865 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). To support a conspiracy conviction, “the government must show (1) that two or more persons agreed to violate the law; (2) that the defendant knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy; (3) that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily took part in the conspiracy; and (4) that the conspirators were interdependent.” United States v. Wright, 506 F.3d 1293, 1297-98 (10th Cir. 2007). To sustain a conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed cocaine with the specific intent to distribute. United States v. Hager, 969 F.2d 883, 888 (10th Cir. 1992). Ramirez argues no reasonable jury could infer beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew of the presence of cocaine in the truck or agreed to participate in a common plan to distribute it. He relies heavily upon this court’s decision in -16- Jones, which reversed the conspiracy and possession convictions of a passenger in a vehicle caught transporting a large quantity of drugs. 44 F.3d at 865. After conducting a thorough review of the record, the Jones court noted the complete lack of evidence indicating the defendant “knew the car contained cocaine or that she participated in a common plan to distribute it.” Id. at 865, 866 (“[The] mere presence, as a passenger, in a car found to be carrying drugs is insufficient to implicate the passenger in the conspiracy.”). Rather, the evidence in Jones only supported an inference the defendant suspected illegal activity. Id. at 866. This inference, coupled only with the defendant’s passenger status, was insufficient to support the defendant’s conspiracy conviction. Id. This case, however, is distinguishable from Jones. Unlike the defendant in Jones, Ramirez actively participated in the ruse that the truck in which he was traveling was in the business of re-upholstering worn-out booths at Denny’s establishments. Ramirez told Deputy Bentley he had worked for “All States Upholstery” for one month and wore a shirt with the company’s logo. In addition, the condition of the tools in the cargo box and the complete lack of receipts, invoices, or pay stubs allowed the jury to infer Ramirez knew “All States Upholstery” was a fictitious company associated with a significant drug enterprise. Further, Ramirez provided false identification to the officer, was in close proximity to the keys (and opening mechanism) providing access to the drugs, and shared driving responsibilities. Considering all the evidence in this -17- case in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could have inferred that all the elements of both crimes were established.
Finally, Ramirez argues his sentence is substantively unreasonable in light of his personal history and characteristics, particularly, his lack of criminal history. This court reviews a district court’s sentencing determination for abuse of discretion, asking whether the sentence is reasonable in light of the factors set fourth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). “If the district court correctly calculates the Guidelines range based upon the facts and imposes sentence within that range, the sentence is entitled to a presumption of reasonableness.” United States v. Sutton, 520 F.3d 1259, 1262 (10th Cir. 2008). This presumption can be rebutted by showing the sentence is unreasonable in light of the factors found in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Kristl, 437 F.3d 1050, 1054 (10th Cir. 2006). In this case, the district court correctly calculated the advisory Guidelines range and properly considered the § 3553(a) factors before imposing a sentence at the low end of the advisory Guidelines range. Ramirez has not provided any nonfrivolous grounds to rebut this presumptively reasonable sentence. Accordingly, the district court’s sentence is not substantively unreasonable. -18-