Opinion ID: 3165718
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court’s Ruling and Order

Text: The jury found Navarrette and Guzman-Arias guilty of the Conspiracy, Distribution of Heroin, and Possession charges, but did not find true that the distribution of heroin resulted in the death of another. The jury, however, found true that Navarrette conspired to distribute a kilogram or more of heroin. After the verdict, Guzman-Arias renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that the conspiracy involved a quantity of at least one kilogram of heroin; Navarrette joined in the motion, which the court denied in a written order. The court first summarized the evidence discussed above. Noting that the testimony of both Burns and EquihuaRamirez was vague and failed to specify the total quantity of heroin that either purchased, and applying the substantial evidence standard from United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), the court employed two UNITED STATES V. NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR 13 different approaches to determine the amount of heroin that the jury could have found without speculation. First, the court analyzed the amount of heroin the jury could have inferred from Equihua-Ramirez’s testimony as to the number of purchases he made from Navarrette through Guzman-Arias. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, id. at 1161, the court concluded that the jury could have found that Equihua-Ramirez purchased heroin fourteen times, and that the last purchase was for 100 grams.3 Adding the 274 grams that both defendants conceded were attributable to the conspiracy (the 75 grams found in the two searches of Equihua-Ramirez’s property, and the 199 grams found in Guzman-Arias’s car), the court reached a total of 374 grams. However, the court concluded that for the remaining thirteen purchases, the jury could only speculate as to how many times Equihua-Ramirez purchased one, two, or three ounces. Therefore, the court concluded that the only amount that the jury could have found without engaging in speculation was the least of these, as it was certain that Equihua-Ramirez purchased at least one ounce in each of the thirteen transactions. Thus, taking Equihua-Ramirez’s testimony and physical evidence alone, the court concluded that the jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy involved 699 grams of 3 It is unclear whether the district court meant pieces (25 grams) or ounces; four ounces would be 112 grams, whereas four pieces would be 100. 14 UNITED STATES V. NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR heroin (274 grams found, plus 100 grams admitted as the last purchase, plus 325 grams).4 Next, the court analyzed Burns’s testimony to determine the quantity of heroin that the jury could have inferred without speculation. Noting again the inconsistencies in Burns’s testimony with regard to the frequency with which he purchased heroin, the court turned to the phone records showing calls between Equihua-Ramirez and Burns in order to estimate the number of transactions between them. While the court arrived at a number of transactions it believed was adequately supported by the phone records and testimony, the court observed that, again, the jury would have had to speculate as to how much heroin was involved in each. Nonetheless, the court concluded that the jury could have found without speculation that Burns purchased 750 grams from Equihua-Ramirez, based on Burns’s testimony that he purchased “a few,” or three pieces (75 grams) per week, and based on the assumption of a ten-week period. Thus, the court found that the physical and testimonial evidence did not reach the one kilogram quantity threshold. The court concluded, however, that Equihua-Ramirez’s and Burns’s testimony provided the jury a reasonable ‘guide’ as to the total amount that was involved in the conspiracy. Based on the history of dealing from mid-March to 4 It is again unclear whether the court meant “pieces” or ounces in coming to the total of 325 grams; 28 grams per ounce multiplied 13 times is actually 364 grams, which would bring the total to 750 grams – 274 grams found, plus 112 grams (four ounces) for the last purchase, plus 13 purchases totaling 364 grams. UNITED STATES V. NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR 15 early June 2012 . . . and construing the evidence and inferences in the Government’s favor, the jury could have made a reasonable, non-speculative inference that Defendants must have agreed to distribute as much heroin as they could and that the distribution would have continued in a similar fashion. That is, the court concluded that the evidence in the record established a pattern of transactions that would have allowed the jury to infer a preexisting agreement to distribute at least a kilogram of heroin. Count One carried a mandatory minimum of twenty years, due to Navarrette’s prior conviction and the jury’s special finding. Count Two carried no mandatory minimum, and Count Four carried a mandatory minimum of ten years. On the basis of the jury’s quantity finding, as well as an increase of three levels for Navarrette’s role in the conspiracy, and after subtracting two levels for an anticipated change in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the court calculated a base offense level of thirty-three. After considering Navarrette’s criminal history, the court calculated the guideline range for each count as 168–210 months, before taking into account the mandatory minimum on Count One. The court then sentenced Navarrette to 240 months on each count of conviction (the mandatory minimum on Count One due to the the one kilogram quantity), to run concurrently, and to a 10-year term of supervised release following his incarceration. The court used the same base offense level in imposing the sentences on each count. 16 UNITED STATES V. NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR