Opinion ID: 52760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: hugo salazar

Text: Salazar is a tattoo artist by trade. Trial testimony indicated that he met the other co-conspirators while purchasing heroin for personal use. Sometime thereafter, he then began giving tattoos to members of the conspiracy in exchange 2 for heroin. Eventually, he began selling heroin at the 15th Street warehouse, and at some point later on, he began assisting in the packaging of the heroin and in the transportation of the drugs and drug proceeds from one location to another. On appeal Salazar makes two contentions: (1) that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and (2) that the government’s use of a spiralbound notebook that listed Salazar’s street name, “Mexico,” constitutes reversible error. Salazar’s first contention stems from the defense he presented at trial: he was a drug user, not a drug salesman. Although he acknowledges hanging out at the 15th Street warehouse, he argues that the evidence implicating him in the conspiracy either lacked credibility or was not properly admitted. More specifically, he argues that the testimony of his co-conspirators is insufficient because: (1) the co-conspirators gave conflicting testimony as to the timing and scope of his participation in the conspiracy; (2) each co-conspirator hoped to curry favor with the government by implicating Salazar; and (3) the only physical evidence connecting him to the conspiracy is insufficient to support his conviction. We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence supporting guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Garcia, 405 F.3d 1260, 1269 (11th Cir. 3 2005). “[We] consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, there is sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict when the facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the government.” United States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 658 (11th Cir. 1990). We also review the jury’s credibility choices in the government’s favor. Id. at 656. Although Salazar may put forth an interpretation of the evidence that would not support a jury verdict against him, the government need not disprove every reasonable hypothesis except guilt. Id. Instead, we determine whether the jury made a reasonable construction of the evidence. Id. If that construction paints a picture of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, this Court will not reverse the jury’s verdict. Id. Concerning the testimony of co-conspirators, “an unbroken stream of precedent in this circuit has established that the uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator or accomplice is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Craig v. Singletary, 127 F.3d 1030, 1044 (11th Cir. 1997). In this case, at least four witnesses testified that Salazar had sold, packaged, and transported heroin in furtherance of the overall conspiracy. Although Salazar correctly points out some discrepancies in the testimony against him, those discrepancies relate only to the timing and scope of his participation. No one testified that Salazar was not a part of the conspiracy. It is unremarkable that different co-conspirators 4 would have different recollections of the precise moment when Salazar joined them. The jury obviously thought that he was part of the conspiracy, and the testimony was sufficient for them to make that inference. The physical evidence that Salazar challenges is a spiral-bound notebook that apparently was never admitted into evidence by the district court. The notebook was discovered in Ismael Ayala’s BMW by Detective Paul Davis. When Detective Davis found the notebook, it had been stashed in a secret compartment where the car’s driver side airbag should have been. Only one page in the notebook related to Salazar. That page listed Salazar’s street name, “Mexico.” The entry did not list any dates, dollar amounts, or drug quantities. Instead, next to Salazar’s street name was a symbol—either an “X” or the number “1” with a slash through it. The author of the notebook entry had drawn an arrow connecting Salazar’s street name to the symbol. The government made a general reference to the notebook while questioning a witness, and later, during closing arguments, published the page with Salazar’s street name on it to the jury. On appeal, Salazar makes two arguments about the notebook. His first argument, part of his insufficiency of the evidence contention, is that the mere appearance of his street name in the notebook next to an ambiguous symbol does 5 nothing to establish his participation in the conspiracy. That argument does not help Salazar, because without the notebook there is abundant evidence proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. His other argument is that the government’s use of the notebook during the trial requires us to reverse his conviction. Because Salazar did not object to the government’s publication of the notebook to the jury, our review is only for plain error. United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2005). “Likewise, when a defendant does not object at trial to statements made by the prosecution, we review under the same plain error standard.” United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 1302, 1307 (11th Cir. 2006). “Under the plain error standard, before an appellate court can correct an error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Id. at 1308. To affect a defendant’s substantial rights, the error “must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. The standard for showing that is the familiar reasonable probability of a different result formulation, which means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.” United States v. Rodriguez, 398 F.3d 1291, 1299 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Even assuming that the district court plainly erred by allowing any reference to the notebook during testimony and closing arguments, that error did not affect 6 Salazar’s substantial rights. The testimony against him specifically identified him as a drug packager, courier, and salesman. That testimony was far more probative of Salazar’s guilt than the notebook entry. There is no reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the notebook had never been mentioned.