Court Opinion

ID: 9400683
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-08 20:01:07.549053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:47.320967
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                File Name: 23a0261n.06

                                           No. 22-3533

                          UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                               FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                  Jun 08, 2023
                                                      )                       DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      )
        Plaintiff-Appellee,                           )
                                                                 ON APPEAL FROM THE
                                                      )
 v.                                                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                      )
                                                                 COURT     FOR      THE
                                                      )
 CHRISTIAN HAYWARD,                                              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
                                                      )
                                                                 OHIO
        Defendant-Appellant.                          )
                                                                                OPINION
                                                      )

Before: KETHLEDGE, STRANCH, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges.

       KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. Christian Hayward challenges on various grounds his

conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute about 15 pounds of methamphetamine.

We reject his arguments and affirm.

                                                 I.

                                                A.

       In October 2019, Drug Enforcement Administration agents were conducting

drug-interdiction operations at a Greyhound bus station in Omaha, Nebraska. As part of that

sweep, plainclothes agents boarded a bus that had stopped on its way from California to Ohio. As

the agents waited for the passengers to reboard following a driver change, they noticed a blue Nike

duffel bag with no tags or markings sitting on a seat; the agents waited near the back of the bus to

see who would claim it. When the passengers had all reembarked, no one sat next to the bag, but

a man—later identified as Brady Hill—walked past the bag and sat in the row behind it. Hill asked
No. 22-3533, United States v. Hayward

other passengers “if anyone had seen his Nike bag”—the one sitting inches in front of him. Hill

later opened the bag and took out a cough drop, which prompted the agents to come forward and

question him. An agent asked Hill if he owned the bag. Initially, Hill said no, but when asked

again he nodded that he did. Hill also disclosed that he was travelling from Los Angeles to

Cleveland on a one-way ticket purchased with cash.

       An agent asked Hill if he would consent to a search or a dog sniff of the bag; Hill refused

both. Based on Hill’s actions (which the agents described as Hill “attempting to play dumb or

distance himself from ownership of the bag”) and his travel arrangements (a one-way ticket

purchased with cash for a 50-hour trip), the agents detained him. They removed Hill and the bag

from the bus, and a few minutes later a certified police dog sniffed the bag and indicated that it

contained contraband.

       An agent then advised Hill of his Miranda rights and discussed his options with him. The

agent explained that they were not interested in small amounts of personal-use marijuana and, if

that was all that was in the bag, Hill could consent to a search to confirm that fact and then reboard

the bus. Alternatively, if Hill refused to allow a search, the agent said that they would apply for a

warrant, which would take some time and would cause Hill to miss the bus. The agent reiterated

that Hill did not need to consent to a search and that he “was just giving [Hill his] options.” The

agent then asked, “So, do you want me to do a search warrant or do you want to allow me to search

the bag?” Hill said, “You’re more than welcome to search the bag. I kind of think I know what

you’re going to find.” Agents then searched the duffel bag and found 15 one-pound plastic bags

concealed among Hill’s clothes and toiletries; field tests showed that each bag contained

methamphetamine.

                                                  2
No. 22-3533, United States v. Hayward

       At that point, Hill agreed to cooperate. He told agents that, several days before, Christian

Hayward had met him in Los Angeles and that Hayward put the plastic bags in the Nike bag, which

Hill was supposed to transport to Hayward in Cleveland. Hill said he had watched Hayward wipe

each of the one-pound bags with alcohol as Hayward packed the drugs among Hill’s things in the

duffel bag, and that Hayward told Hill “not to look” in the bag. Messages on Hill’s phone—which

Hill voluntarily unlocked for the agents to search—corroborated this account. Hill also said that

he had been a drug courier for Hayward multiple times in the past and that, typically, Hayward

told Hill to meet him at the bus stop in Cleveland with the drugs. For example, one text exchange

from July 2019, from another phone number that Hill said was Hayward’s, showed that Hayward

had paid Hill $1,500 to carry drugs on a bus from California to Cleveland. At the agents’ request,

Hill then texted Hayward, saying that he would arrive as scheduled in Cleveland early the

following morning.

       With information from the agents in Nebraska, agents in Ohio then obtained a warrant to

locate Hayward’s phone in Cleveland. Early the next morning, when Hill’s bus was scheduled to

arrive, agents tracked Hayward’s phone to a street near the Cleveland Greyhound station. The

agents stopped Hayward’s car and detained him and another male passenger. The agents removed

both men from the car and called the number that Hill had identified. A cell phone sitting in the

center console of Hayward’s car then started to ring. The ringing phone showed the agent’s

number as the incoming caller, confirming that it was the phone with which Hill had been texting

in Omaha. Hayward’s passenger also confirmed that the number Hill had given the agents was in

fact Hayward’s.

       The agents then arrested Hayward, informed him of his Miranda rights, and asked him

what he was doing driving at 2:30 a.m. in downtown Cleveland, about 10 miles away from his

                                                3
No. 22-3533, United States v. Hayward

home in Euclid, Ohio. Hayward initially said that he was “just driving around,” but later said,

“man, I’m just headed to the bus station to pick up a friend, that’s it.” When agents asked for the

name of his friend, Hayward asked for his attorney and questioning stopped.

       Several weeks later, agents obtained a search warrant for the historical cell-site location

information for the two cell phone numbers of Hayward’s that Hill had provided. That search

showed that Hayward had made several trips to Los Angeles before the one Hill described to the

agents. Records from United Airlines also placed Hayward in California when Hill said he was

there packing the duffel bag with methamphetamines. Hayward was then charged with one count

of   conspiracy   to   possess    with   intent    to   distribute   controlled   substances   under

21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and § 846.

                                                  B.

       Hayward later moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the agents’ search of the

duffel bag, arguing that the agents in Omaha lacked reasonable suspicion sufficient to detain Hill.

The district court denied the motion, finding that Hayward lacked standing to challenge the search

of the bag because he did not own it. After a two-day trial, the jury convicted Hayward of

conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of

methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 292 months’ imprisonment. This appeal

followed.

                                                  II.

                                                  A.

       Hayward argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. We

review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, and

                                                  4
No. 22-3533, United States v. Hayward

consider the evidence in the light most likely to support the district court’s decision. See United

States v. Russell, 26 F.4th 371, 374 (6th Cir. 2022).

       The district court denied Hayward’s suppression motion on Fourth Amendment standing

grounds (which are not jurisdictional), but we cut to the merits instead. Hayward’s argument

specifically is that Hill’s consent to search the duffel bag was invalid, for two reasons. The first,

Hayward says, is that Hill lacked authority to consent to the search. But Hill undisputedly had his

own personal effects in the bag along with the drugs, which at a minimum made Hill a “joint user”

of the bag. See Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 740 (1969). Under binding Supreme Court

precedent, therefore, Hill had authority to consent to the search. See United States v. Matlock, 415

U.S. 164, 170–71 (1974); see also Frazier, 394 U.S. at 740.

       Hayward’s second argument is that Hill’s consent to the search was invalid because, he

says, it was obtained as a result of Hill’s seizure on the bus—which Hayward says was illegal.

Illegal seizure or not, however, Supreme Court precedent forecloses this argument as well. The

problem is that Hayward himself was not the person seized. And the Supreme Court has held

“beyond any doubt that the interest in deterring illegal searches does not justify the exclusion of

tainted evidence at the instance of a party who was not the victim of the challenged practices.”

United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 735 (1980). Hence the exclusionary rule would not apply

here in any event, which means that Hayward’s argument fails.

                                                 B.

       Hayward next argues that the government failed to introduce evidence sufficient to support

a conviction for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Here, we ask “whether, after viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have

                                                 5
No. 22-3533, United States v. Hayward

found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443

U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

       To establish a drug-trafficking conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the government must

prove “that two or more individuals have agreed to violate a drug law (such as § 841(a)(1)’s ban

on distributing drugs) and that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into this

agreement.” United States v. Wheat, 988 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir. 2021). A single co-conspirator’s

testimony can be enough to prove a defendant’s involvement in a conspiracy. See United States

v. Graham, 622 F.3d 445, 450 (6th Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). That is true regardless of whether

the testimony is corroborated. See United States v. Spearman, 186 F.3d 743, 746 (6th Cir. 1999).

       Here, Hill testified that he repeatedly transported distribution-level quantities of drugs

across the country for Hayward. The methamphetamine in Hill’s bag when he was arrested itself

had a street value of about $50,000. And a large number of text messages corroborated Hill’s

testimony at trial. Ample evidence therefore supported Hayward’s § 846 conviction.

       Hayward’s arguments to the contrary are meritless. Our decision in Wheat is plainly

distinguishable, given that Hill ferried drugs for Hayward no less than seven times. See 988 F.3d

at 309–11. And this court will not second-guess the jury’s determination that Hill’s testimony was

credible. See United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989, 996 (6th Cir.1999).

                                                 C.

                                                  1.

       Finally, Hayward challenges the district court’s calculation of his guidelines range. We

review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. United

States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527, 539–40 (6th Cir. 2008).

                                                  6
No. 22-3533, United States v. Hayward

       Hayward first argues that the district court erred when it attributed to him just over six

kilograms of methamphetamine. He argues, specifically, that the government tested for purity

only 3 of the 15 bags that were seized from Hill. When calculating drug-quantity, “the district

court can make a reasonable estimate based on physical evidence or testimony.” United States v.

Gardner, 32 F.4th 504, 524 (6th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). Here, Hill testified that Hayward placed

15 plastic bags of drugs in his duffel bag; each of the bags field tested positive for

methamphetamine, and each was nearly identical in size and appearance, weighing about a pound.

Three of those bags were laboratory tested, and each of the three contained at least 0.97 pounds of

drugs. Hayward stipulated to all of these facts. And Hayward did not contest that the drugs from

one of the lab-tested bags was about 96 percent pure. Given this undisputed evidence, the district

court did not clearly err when it estimated that Hayward was responsible for about 13.42 pounds

(6.088 kilograms) of methamphetamine. See United States v. Jackson, 470 F.3d 299, 310–11 (6th

Cir. 2006) (cleaned up).

                                                2.

       Hayward argues next that the district court erred in applying a 2-point leadership

enhancement to his sentence. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). “To qualify for an adjustment under this

section, the defendant must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more

other participants.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.2. Here, the evidence showed that Hayward told Hill

where and when to pick up drugs from Hayward (either Las Vegas or Los Angeles); that Hayward

dictated Hill’s mode of travel; that only Hayward knew the type and quantity of drugs in each

shipment; and that Hayward set the amount that Hill was paid per trip. The district court correctly

applied this enhancement.

                                                7
No. 22-3533, United States v. Hayward

                                                   3.

        Finally, Hayward argues that, in calculating his criminal history, the district court should

not have included two state-court convictions that Hayward now says are “void.” That argument

amounts to a collateral attack on his convictions in those cases, in his direct appeal of his conviction

and sentence in this case. But a “defendant cannot attack a state conviction used for any purpose

in federal sentencing proceedings unless he identifies a statute providing for collateral attack or

claims a denial of the right to counsel.” See United States v. Aguilar-Diaz, 626 F.3d 265, 269 (6th

Cir. 2010). Here, Hayward does neither, which means his argument fails. The district court did

not err in calculating Hayward’s criminal history.

                                           *       *       *

        The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                   8