Opinion ID: 4520100
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: As part of an investigation of a methamphetamine trafficking ring, agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) wiretapped a cell phone that Silva was using while he was an inmate at Smith State Prison under the custody of the Georgia Department of Corrections. DEA agents intercepted numerous texts and phone calls in which Silva coordinated deals to sell large quantities of methamphetamine. Acting undercover, Agent Chase Hallman contacted the wiretapped phone to set up a drug deal. Hallman sent a text message saying that he was “[l]ooking for some work.” Doc. 242 at 28.2 Silva responded, “[T]hat’s cool. 1 The facts come from the evidence adduced at trial and the unobjected-to facts contained in the presentence investigation report. 2 “Doc. #” refers to the numbered entry on the district court’s docket. 2 Case: 18-13102 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 3 of 19 I’ll be ready but I come out after 6 P.M.” Id. at 29. Hallman texted the cell phone again later that evening. He wrote, “So you are good with twelve five for a whole [kilogram]?” Id. at 30. Silva responded “Yes. If you get consistent I will drop the number some.” Id. Hallman and Silva then talked on the phone to arrange the deal. Silva told Hallman to meet with someone named Flacko to complete the transaction. On the day of the arranged deal, an undercover agent met with Flacko. When Flacko gave the agent only half a kilogram of methamphetamine—not the whole kilogram agreed upon—Hallman contacted Silva about the discrepancy. Silva promised that he would give Hallman extra methamphetamine to compensate for the mix-up. When Hallman contacted Flacko about getting the extra methamphetamine, Flacko said that he had not gotten permission from Silva to “turn over the dope.” Id. at 44. Silva told Hallman to contact another one of his associates, Lydia Beck, about making up the shortage. When Hallman called Beck, she said that she “usually winds up fixing” Silva’s mistakes. Id. at 56. He met Beck, and she gave him the methamphetamine. After the transaction, law enforcement continued to investigate Silva. During the investigation, the wiretap picked up a phone call between Silva and Beck, in which Silva asked Beck to hold drugs for another associate, Scrappy. From the wiretap, investigators learned the address of the house where the drugs 3 Case: 18-13102 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 4 of 19 would be delivered, set up surveillance at the house, and obtained a search warrant. When the officers executed the search warrant the next day, they found 13-gallon jugs containing methamphetamine in solution. From the wiretap, investigators picked up another phone call in which Silva organized a drug deal with an associate, Leslie Nelson. Law enforcement set up surveillance, watched the deal take place, and intercepted texts between Silva and Nelson confirming that the deal was done. Nelson drove away and, shortly thereafter, was apprehended by a Georgia patrolman. A search of her truck revealed three kilograms of methamphetamine and a loaded gun. The gun was not registered under Silva’s name. The wiretap picked up no conversations between Silva and Nelson in which they discussed the gun.
Silva was charged with (1) conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count 1); (2) four counts of possession with intent to distribute, in violation of § 841(a)(1) (Counts 2–5); and (3) possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i) (Count 6). He pled not guilty.
At trial, the government presented evidence to the jury about its investigation, including testimony about how the cell phone was used to organize 4 Case: 18-13102 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 5 of 19 the drug transactions discussed above. The government also presented evidence linking the cell phone to Silva. DEA Officer Robert Keim testified that he searched Silva’s prison cell and discovered the cell phone that was the subject of the wiretap. By listening to the intercepted phone calls and talking to Silva in person, Keim determined that Silva was the prisoner who possessed the cell phone and used it to coordinate drug deals. Keim was “confident” that Silva was the primary user of the cell phone because he had spoken with Silva once “for approximately five minutes,” and Silva had “an extremely distinct voice.” Doc. 241 at 113–14. On cross-examination, when asked whether he thought the voice in the calls was Silva’s, Keim testified, “I am pretty confident—I am confident that that was his voice that we captured.” Id. at 123. He later confirmed, “It’s Silva.” Id. at 124. He did not consult with an expert or request a voice exemplar to confirm that the voice on the phone was Silva’s. There was no security video footage showing Silva using the phone or cell site data showing that the phone was located in the prison on the days the drug deals took place. Other than Silva’s roommate, Keim interviewed no other prisoners to see whether they had access to the phone. Jonathan Santiago, an officer at Smith State Prison, testified that he interacted with Silva once or twice a week and was familiar with Silva’s voice, 5 Case: 18-13102 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 6 of 19 which was distinctive. When the government played an audio recording from an intercepted phone call on Silva’s cell phone, Santiago recognized Silva’s voice. Hallman testified that he was present for the search of Silva’s prison cell. The identification number of the cell phone that was wiretapped matched that of the cell phone found in Silva’s prison cell. After the search, Hallman spoke with Silva and recognized Silva’s voice from the phone calls. Hallman testified that one of Silva’s associates, Pollo, “was in Mexico” during the entire investigation. Doc. 242 at 131. Hallman also testified that, in his experience, it was common for guns to be associated with drug deals and drug stashes. The government rested. Silva then moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a), arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he participated in the charged crimes. The district court denied the motion, and Silva rested without presenting any evidence. The jury found Silva guilty on all counts.
Before sentencing, the probation office prepared a presentence investigation report (“PSR”). According to the unobjected-to facts in the PSR, Silva coordinated with co-conspirators and trafficked large quantities of methamphetamine while he was incarcerated. The PSR determined that Silva could be held accountable for 6 Case: 18-13102 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 7 of 19 4,761.5772 grams of “methamphetamine actual” and 65.504 kilograms of methamphetamine mixture. The PSR calculated that Silva’s total offense level was 44, which included a two-level enhancement for importation of methamphetamine under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5). The PSR explained that Silva “knew that the methamphetamine involved in the offense was imported by Pollo, [Silva’s] source of supply in Mexico.” PSR ¶ 86a. Regarding Silva’s criminal history, the PSR noted that he was serving a sentence for a past drug conviction and had been incarcerated since 2010. The PSR determined that Silva’s criminal history category was III. Based on an adjusted offense level of 44 and a criminal history category of III, the PSR determined that Silva’s Guidelines range was life plus 60 months’ imprisonment. In a sentencing memorandum, Silva objected to the two-level importation enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(5), arguing that there was no evidence showing that he participated in the importation of the methamphetamine from Mexico or knew it was imported from Mexico. He stated that “almost all methamphetamine available in [the United States] is now imported from Mexico.” Doc. 169 at 1. Additionally, Silva argued that the recommended Guidelines sentence was disproportionately harsh in his case, which involved no violence, large sums of money, or major distribution network. The government responded that the importation 7 Case: 18-13102 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 8 of 19 enhancement was appropriate because Silva’s crimes “simply involved the importation” of methamphetamine, which was all the enhancement required. Doc. 171 at 1-2. At sentencing, the district court adopted the unobjected-to facts and legal conclusions in the PSR. The court noted that it had read the parties’ sentencing memoranda and heard argument from Silva regarding the importation enhancement. Silva argued at sentencing that the importation enhancement was inapplicable because there was no evidence that he knew the methamphetamine came from Mexico. Silva asserted that the government’s reading of the enhancement was “way too expansive because virtually all of the meth[amphetamine] comes from Mexico now, [and] it would apply to everybody.” Doc. 244 at 3. In response, the government submitted written summaries of phone calls between Silva and his associates that were prepared as part of the DEA investigation. Silva did not object, and the court admitted the evidence, which showed that: (1) Silva told one associate that he got his product from Pollo, who was in Tamuaulipas, Mexico; (2) Silva asked another associate if he could call Mexico on his phone, and then told the associate to call Pollo; (3) Silva told yet another associate that he was talking to “the guy . . . in Mex”; and (4) Pollo sent Silva a text message telling him that Pollo was in a cartel. Doc. 206-2 at 1–4. The court overruled Silva’s objection, stating that there was not “any way around” 8 Case: 18-13102 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 9 of 19 applying the enhancement and noting that, as Silva had stated, “there is not much meth, at least significant amounts of it, in Georgia that is not imported from Mexico.” Doc. 244 at 3–4. The court asked the parties for their sentencing recommendations. The government argued that a total sentence of life plus 60 months was appropriate considering Silva’s leadership role in the conspiracy and history of trafficking drugs. Silva requested a total sentence of 25 years (300 months), the statutory minimum, arguing that there were no “sufficient aggravators” to justify a total life sentence. Id. at 13-14. Stating that it had “carefully considered all of the sentencing factors set forth” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the court sentenced Silva to a below-guidelines total sentence of 420 months, which included 360 months as to Counts 1–5, to run concurrently, and 60 months as to Count 6, to run consecutively to the 360-month term for Counts 1–5. Id. at 18. Silva objected, without success. This is Silva’s appeal.