Opinion ID: 2979776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pamela Salyers

Text: Pamela Salyers argues that the evidence did not establish that she had knowledge of the main purpose of the conspiracy or that she knowingly aided and abetted the conspiracy. We review sufficiency-of-evidence claims in the light most favorable to the government. If “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” then sufficient evidence exists. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). “[W]e do not weigh the 9 evidence, assess the credibility of the witnesses, or substitute our judgment for that of the jury.” United States v. Wright, 16 F.3d 1429, 1440 (6th Cir. 1994)(internal citation omitted). To establish a conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an agreement between two or more persons to act together in committing an offense, and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. This requirement has been broken down into a four-part test, which requires the government to prove that: 1) the conspiracy described in the indictment was wilfully [sic] formed, and was existing at or about the time alleged; 2) the accused willfully [sic] became a member of the conspiracy; 3) one of the conspirators thereafter knowingly committed at least one overt act charged in the indictment at or about the time and place alleged; and 4) that overt act was knowingly done in furtherance of some object or purpose of the conspiracy as charged. United States v. Beverly, 369 F.3d 516, 532 (6th Cir. 2004)(internal citations and quotations omitted). Pamela Salyers argues that the evidence at trial at best showed she played a minor role in her husband’s business and her limited time spent in the office was not sufficient to establish a role in the conspiracy. In other words, she argues that there was insufficient evidence presented that she knew the purpose of the conspiracy, that she voluntarily joined the conspiracy, or that she aided and abetted the same. In order to resolve this issue, a review of the evidence presented at trial is in order. The government presented proof through the testimony of Michael Bloxom, enforcement supervisor for the Wildlife Freshwater Fisheries Division for the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. He testified that during the time of the conspiracy, the minimum size for harvesting and selling lake washboard mussels in Alabama was four inches. Similarly, Freddie Couch, the statewide commercial enforcement officer for TWRA testified that the size limit in Tennessee was four inches. Pamela Salyers suggests that the state laws regarding the size of mussels are problematic, citing the testimony of Peach. However, it is undisputed that 10 the size requirements are clearly laid out in the text of the law. Moreover, as explained in detail below, the government produced sufficient evidence that Pamela Salyers was aware that she and her husband were purchasing undersized shells. James Wilson, a mussel diver, testified that he began selling undersized shells in 2003 to William Salyers, and continued to do so for about seven or eight months when he was cited for the undersized shells. He further testified that when he brought the mussels in, they were weighed by the workers, marked on a ticket, and tallied, after which he was given a receipt by Pamela Salyers or her husband. Wilson also testified that William Salyers specifically asked him to bring in small mussel shells and that those small shells were not recorded on the TWRA receipt. Larry Baker testified that he also sold small washboard mussels to William Salyers. His testimony was generally consistent with that of Wilson. He testified that Pamela Salyers worked at the business. He admitted to selling approximately 2,300 pounds of illegal shells to the Salyerses. Robert Siedler, an enforcement officer with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources operating undercover, also testified at trial. He testified that he went to the Salyerses’ place of business to see if they would buy undersized shells. He further testified he sold the Salyerses legal and illegal shells and that all of his contact with the Salyerses was audio-or videotaped. He also testified that he received two TWRA receipts for legal shells from Pamela Salyers that she filled out. Siedler further testified that on August 25, 2004, he went to the Salyerses’s business to sell them legal and illegal shells. The audiotape was played for the jury. Siedler identified Pamela Salyers’s voice on the tape and stated that he received two checks from her, one from Bruce Metts for the legal shells and one from him for the illegal shells. He also identified the check Pamela 11 Salyers gave him for the 405 pounds of illegal shells. On the audio tape, while William Salyers is making out checks, he asks Pamela Salyers whether the “four hundred of them small boards” are on the ticket, to which she replies that they are not. The remainder of the conversation was played, which Siedler explained showed Pamela Salyers had intimate knowledge of the mussel business. Siedler further testified that he sold 2,444 pounds of illegal shells to the Salyerses on August 28, 2004 and another 1,267 pounds on October 19, 2004. Pamela Salyers was present at both transactions. Finally, Siedler testified that during these transactions, he explained to Pamela Salyers that the shells were undersized and he did not want any paperwork. He was never given a receipt for the illegal shells. Most of the time, Pamela Salyers filled out the checks. Charles Arnold testified that he worked for the Salyerses weighing and grading shells and filling out the weight tickets. He explained that a weigh ticket which had the notation “SWLB” on it referred to small lake washboards and meant mussel shells that were less than four inches. He further testified that tickets with this notation would be handed in to the office to either Pamela Salyers or William Salyers. Timmy Robbins testified that he made up weight tickets and gave them to Pamela Salyers or sometimes gave them to the divers. He also explained that “SWLB” stood for small lake washboards, meaning undersized shells. He further testified that the small shells would be separated from the regular shells. He identified the handwriting on Exhibit 35, the weigh ticket he made out, which contained “SWLB,” as Pamela Salyers’s handwriting. Based on the above, ample proof was presented at trial that small shells were sold to Pamela Salyers and her husband and that the shells were weighed and the weights were written on a weight ticket. If there were small lake washboard mussels on the ticket, they were marked with the notation 12 “SWLB,” to indicate they were small, i.e., illegally undersized. The weight tickets were given to Pamela Salyers or William Salyers and tallied up, and the divers were given a TWRA receipt. If small lake washboard mussels were sold, they were never shown on the TWRA receipt. The evidence also showed that Pamela Salyers or her husband were buying illegally small shells. Pamela or William Salyers would use the weight tickets to make out the TWRA receipts. Two of the weight tickets were compared to the TWRA receipts which indicted that the TWRA receipts did not reflect the small lake washboards listed on the weight ticket. Pamela Salyers’s handwriting was identified on exhibit 35, the weight ticket, by Robbins. Siedler’s testimony also established Pamela Salyers’s knowledge and role in the conspiracy. Seidler explained that he told Pamela Salyers that the shells were undersized and that he did not want any paperwork. He was never given a mussel receipt for any of the illegal shells. However, Pamela Salyers did give him mussel receipts for the legal shells. The recordings played in connection with Siedler’s testimony further evidenced her role in the conspiracy. Based on a review of the trial record, we find that there was sufficient evidence to show that Pamela Salyers had a role in the conspiracy, beyond that of a bookkeeper allegedly unaware of any criminal activity. The testimony showed that Pamela Salyers paid the divers separate amounts of money depending on whether they brought legally sized or illegally undersized mussel shells. She prepared shipping documentation which both concealed and revealed the legally sized and illegally undersized mussel shells, respectively, that were being shipped from the business. Based on all of the evidence, we are satisfied that Pamela Salyers was a knowing participant in the conspiracy.
Pamela Salyers also argues that her 12 month and 1 day sentence is procedurally and 13 substantively unreasonable. “‘Post-Booker, we review a district court's sentencing determination under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, for reasonableness,’” United States v. Presley, 547 F.3d 625, 629 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 578 (6th Cir. 2007)), and the inquiry is “limited to determining whether [a sentence is] reasonable.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 (2007)(internal citations and quotations omitted). We must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence-including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Id. at 51. If there is no significant procedural error, we then “consider the substantive reasonableness,” giving “due deference” to the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors. Id. Pamela Salyers first says her sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court limited her variance arguments to her being a care giver to her grandchildren and failing to consider her cooperation–which led to the controlled delivery of shells to Shin and persuading her husband to plead guilty. She presented her arguments regarding cooperation in her response to the presentence investigation report and again at sentencing. However, after her sentence was pronounced, she did not object on this basis when questioned by the district court. Thus, her arguments are subject to plain-error review. See United States v. Harmon, 607 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 2010). To establish plain error, a defendant must show (1) that an error occurred in the district court; (2) that the error was plain, i.e., obvious or clear; (3) that the error affected defendant's substantial rights; and (4) that this error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 466-67 (1997); United States 14 v. Thomas, 11 F.3d 620, 629-30 (6th Cir. 1993) (discussing at length the plain error doctrine set forth in United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993)). As the government notes, Pamela Salyers points to no evidence in the record to support her contentions regarding her cooperation. There was no testimony offered on these points, nor was any other proof offered in this regard. In seeking a lower sentence, she bore the burden of showing some evidence of her cooperation efforts. See United States v. Rodriguez, 896 F.2d 1031, 1033 (6th Cir. 1990). She did not. In the absence of a factual basis, it cannot be said that the district court procedurally erred in fashioning her sentence without regard to her alleged cooperation. Finally, Pamela Salyers argues that her sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed to properly consider the § 3553(a) factors. Again, she bases this argument on her alleged cooperation efforts. This argument fails for the same reasons her procedural argument fails–a lack of a factual basis for her assertions. A review of the sentencing transcript shows the district court acknowledged the advisory nature of the Guidelines, considered the § 3553(a) factors, correctly calculated the Guidelines range, and fashioned a sentence well below the range based on application of the § 3553(a) factors. Nothing in the record suggests that the district court abused its discretion in imposing her sentence.