Opinion ID: 808641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Raimundo

Text: Raimundo raises two arguments on appeal. Both arguments relate to his conviction.
His first contention, which he raises for the first time on appeal, concerns the GPS tracker that the DEA placed on the underside of the van used by the organization to transport marijuana. From this GPS tracker, the DEA learned that members of the organization were traveling between Houston, Texas, and Greenville, South Carolina, every three to five days. At trial, the district court permitted the government to introduce data from the GPS tracker and to testify about that data. On appeal, Raimundo contends that the district court erred in admitting this evidence because the government failed to lay a proper foundation, see Fed R. Evid. 901, by failing to specify who placed the device, when the device was placed, and upon which vehicle the device was placed. 2 At trial, however, two DEA 2 Raimundo does not contend that the government’s installation of the tracking device or its use to monitor the (Continued) 16 agents testified that the tracker was placed by DEA agents on “a white cargo van with ladders” parked at the main residence. J.A. 280. An employee of the manufacturer of the tracking device provided testimony showing further that the device was placed some time within a one-month window in late 2009. Given this authentication, we conclude that the district court did not plainly err, see Olano, 507 U.S. at 732, in admitting this data and related testimony.
Raimundo’s second challenge on appeal is to the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count 4, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. He challenges only the jury’s finding that he possessed a firearm; he does not challenge whether any of the firearms found were used in furtherance of the drug conspiracy. In this case, Raimundo lived in the main residence, and a firearm was found in the bedroom in which Raimundo stayed. Therefore, under a constructive possession theory, see Burgos, 94 F.3d at 873, a reasonable finder of fact could find Raimundo guilty as to Count 4. Cf. United States v. Shorter, 328 F.3d van’s movements constituted an invalid search under the Fourth Amendment. 17 167, 172 (4th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he fact that the firearms . . . were found in [a defendant’s] home permits an inference of constructive possession.”); United States v. Alanis, 265 F.3d 576, 592 (7th Cir. 2001) (“When a gun is found in a defendant's bedroom, as here, it would not be improper for the jury to infer that [the defendant] had both knowledge of the firearm and an intent to exercise dominion and control over it merely from its presence in the bedroom . . . .” (internal quotation marks omitted)).