Court Opinion

ID: 9352770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 19:02:32.44933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:59:49.094843
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-20564         Document: 00516602291            Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/09/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit

                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                 January 9, 2023
                                        No. 21-20564                              Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                       Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jason Edward Simpson,

                                                                 Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:18-CR-630-3

   Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          A jury convicted Jason Edward Simpson on three drug-related counts
   and one gun-related count. On direct appeal, Simpson challenges the
   sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.
                                               I.
          On August 14, 2018, an undercover Houston Police Department
   (“HPD”) detective texted a narcotics supplier to buy a pint of promethazine

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. Rule 47.5.
Case: 21-20564      Document: 00516602291          Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                    No. 21-20564

   containing codeine (i.e., “lean syrup”). Later that day, two undercover
   detectives met the supplier—Fernando Melendez—at a house on Santiago
   Street in Houston. Melendez’s supplier, Jose Garza, arrived shortly
   thereafter with the lean syrup. The detectives exchanged marked money for
   the pint of lean syrup. But later lab tests revealed that the pint contained no
   controlled substances.
          On August 19, 2018, Melendez texted an HPD detective and informed
   him that he had “tabs and bars” available. “Tabs” refers to ecstasy or
   MDMA; “bars” refers to Xanax. Melendez quoted the detective $1,500 for
   2,000 ecstasy pills. Three days later the detectives again met Melendez at the
   Santiago Street house. When they arrived, they noticed a black Lincoln
   Navigator and a white Buick Enclave parked outside. Melendez told one
   detective to hop in the Navigator’s back passenger seat. Garza sat in the
   driver’s seat, and Melendez sat in the front passenger seat. The defendant—
   Jason Edward Simpson—sat in the backseat next to the HPD detective.
   Simpson said he supplied the pills, the pills were “A1,” and that he used to
   supply “the entire Third Ward” of Houston. After these introductory
   remarks, Simpson handed a bag of pills to the undercover detective, who said
   the pills looked good and asked if he could get a bigger quantity. Although the
   initial agreement was for 2,000 pills, there were about 1,350 in the bag.
   Simpson adjusted the rate accordingly, and the detective paid Melendez
   $1,350 for the pills. Melendez kept a small portion of the money and gave a
   larger portion to Simpson.
          On August 30, 2018, Melendez agreed to sell 5,000 ecstasy pills to the
   HPD detectives for $4,000. Later that day, the detectives arrived at the
   Santiago house and saw a red Pontiac G6 and a black Toyota Tacoma parked
   out front. When they arrived, Melendez was waiting outside. Simpson
   hopped out of the Tacoma with a plastic grocery bag. He held it open and
   showed the detectives a kaleidoscopic mix of tablets. Melendez directed

                                         2
Case: 21-20564        Document: 00516602291             Page: 3      Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                         No. 21-20564

   everyone inside the red Pontiac. Same seats as last time: Garza in the driver’s
   seat, Melendez in the front passenger seat, and Simpson in the backseat with
   the HPD detective. Simpson placed the white grocery bag on the center
   console and explained that the pills were better quality than last time because
   they were from a different source. The HPD detective said the money was in
   his car and went to get it.
           That’s when the arrest team swooped in and arrested everyone,
   including Simpson. (Michael Manning and G.H., who remained in the
   Tacoma while the meeting went down in the Pontiac, were arrested too.) The
   arrest team recovered the grocery bag full of pills from the Pontiac, a loaded
   7.62x25mm handgun 1 on the front passenger floorboard of the Pontiac, and
   an accompanying magazine. They also recovered a handgun under the
   driver’s seat of the Tacoma, a loaded 9mm XTM Springfield Armory pistol.
   Garza later testified that (1) the 7.62x25mm handgun in the Pontiac belonged
   to him, (2) Simpson supplied the pills for both the August 22 and August 30
   transactions, and (3) he and Simpson had been good friends from their
   neighborhood for three years.
           The Government charged Simpson with five drug-trafficking-related
   offenses. A jury convicted Simpson on four of the five counts. See 21 U.S.C.
   §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
   3,4 methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (ecstasy)) (Count One); 21 U.S.C.
   § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (possession with intent to distribute
   50 grams or more of methamphetamine) (Count Two); 21 U.S.C.

           1
             The Government refers to this weapon as a “7.62 caliber handgun.” Red Br. 15.
   But “caliber” refers to imperial cartridge diameters, not metric ones. Thus, a “7.62
   caliber” weapon would shoot a bullet that is 7.62 inches wide, which is fatter than modern
   naval artillery rounds. The weapon found on the floorboard of the Pontiac was a PW Arms
   pistol chambered in 7.62x25mm Tokarev.

                                               3
Case: 21-20564        Document: 00516602291              Page: 4       Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                          No. 21-20564

   § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (possession with intent to distribute
   500 grams or more of methamphetamine) (Count Three); 18 U.S.C.
   §§ 924(c)(1)(A), (o), 2 (conspiracy to use, carry, or possess a firearm during
   and in relation to a drug trafficking offense) (Count Five). The district court
   gave Simpson a below-Guidelines sentence: four concurrent 168-month
   terms of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. Simpson timely
   appealed.
                                               II.
           Simpson raises two sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges. 2 Under
   our precedent, where the defendant chooses not to present his own evidence,
   a boilerplate objection at the close of the Government’s case is sufficient to
   preserve a sufficiency challenge. See United States v. Kieffer, 991 F.3d 630,
   634 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2021) (simply asserting “Rule 29” is enough); id. at 637–
   41 (Oldham, J., concurring in the judgment) (criticizing that result). Simpson
   made such a boilerplate objection here, so our review is de novo. See id. at 634
   (majority op.). Even so, the sufficiency standard is extremely difficult to
   meet: We will affirm the jury’s verdict “unless, viewing the evidence and
   reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, no rational
   jury could have found the essential elements of the offense to be satisfied
   beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Ganji, 880 F.3d 760, 767 (5th
   Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). Simpson cannot come close to meeting that
   standard.

           2
             Simpson also raises a statutory-interpretation challenge but concedes it is
   foreclosed by our precedent. See United States v. Betancourt, 586 F.3d 303, 308–09 (5th Cir.
   2009) (concluding that “knowing” in 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) does not apply to the type and
   quantity determinations under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)).

                                                4
Case: 21-20564     Document: 00516602291           Page: 5    Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                    No. 21-20564

                                        A.
          Simpson argues the evidence the Government introduced to prove
   that he conspired to possess a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime
   was insufficient to support his conviction. We disagree.
          To sustain a conviction for conspiracy to possess a firearm during a
   drug trafficking crime, the Government must prove (1) an agreement to
   commit the crime, (2) the defendant knew about the agreement, and (3) the
   defendant voluntarily participated in the agreement. See United States v.
   Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 303 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc). But a formal
   agreement is not required; the jury may infer knowledge of and involvement
   in the conspiracy from the defendant’s conduct and the surrounding
   circumstances. See United States v. Grant, 683 F.3d 639, 643 (5th Cir. 2012);
   see also United States v. McClaren, 13 F.4th 386, 414 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (“Conspiracies must feature an agreement, although the agreement can be
   informal and unspoken. The agreement can be proven by circumstantial
   evidence alone.” (quotation omitted)).
          A rational juror had ample evidence to convict Simpson of conspiracy
   to possess a gun. The arresting officers found handguns in both vehicles at
   the scene of the August 30 drug transaction, and Simpson was charged with
   conspiracy to possess the loaded PW Arms 7.62x25mm pistol found in the
   Pontiac G6 in relation to a drug trafficking offense. Garza testified that the
   pistol belonged to him. Simpson and Garza were neighborhood friends for at
   least three years before the transaction, and Simpson was a routine supplier
   for Garza. An HPD detective testified that he found the handgun in plain
   view on the front passenger floorboard at Melendez’s feet. A magazine and
   unspent cartridges of ammunition were also found in the Pontiac G6. A
   second handgun (a loaded 9mm XTM Springfield Armory handgun) was
   found under the driver’s seat in the Tacoma. Manning admitted the

                                         5
Case: 21-20564      Document: 00516602291          Page: 6    Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                    No. 21-20564

   Springfield pistol found in the Tacoma belonged to him. It is undisputed that
   Simpson was present in both cars during the encounter before the arrest team
   arrived.
          Moreover, after his arrest, Simpson sent two inmate emails that FBI
   agents intercepted. In those emails, Simpson stated that the reason he was
   present on August 30 was to provide security and to prevent a robbery. Based
   on these emails, an FBI agent told the jury Simpson was present on August
   30 as “muscle” and testified that guns are usually carried or nearby and
   available during such drug transactions. See United States v. Walker, 750 F.
   App’x 324, 328 (5th Cir. 2018) (guns are a “tool of the drug trade”).
          True, Simpson’s co-conspirators cooperated with the Government
   and testified in hopes of getting more lenient sentences. But credible
   testimony from cooperating co-conspirators is sufficient to sustain a
   conspiracy conviction. See McLaren, 13 F.4th at 400 (“Testimony is
   incredible as a matter of law only if it relates to facts that the witness could
   not possibly have observed or to events which could not have occurred under
   the laws of nature.”). And nothing indicates that the testimony of Garza,
   Melendez, or Manning was either incredible or unbelievable. Thus, we reject
   Simpson’s first sufficiency challenge.
                                         B.
          Simpson also argues that the evidence supporting his conviction for
   possession of 500 grams or more of a mixture containing detectible amounts
   of methamphetamine is insufficient. Specifically, he claims that the
   Government’s forensic analyst used a defective sampling plan to test
   Simpson’s drugs. Again, we disagree.
          The forensic analyst used a sampling plan that is consistent with
   industry practice for testing large samples. He divided the pills into groups
   by color, randomly selected 29 samples from each color group to test, and

                                            6
Case: 21-20564       Document: 00516602291        Page: 7   Date Filed: 01/09/2023

                                   No. 21-20564

   then tested them using two different testing methods (chemical spot test and
   GCMS). The sampling plan, chemical spot test, and GCMS were all
   performed in accordance with the standard protocol promulgated by field
   experts. After verifying that all the instruments were performing properly,
   the forensic analyst administered the two different tests on each of the 29
   pills in the color subsets, and they all tested positive for methamphetamine.
   The total net weight of the entire sampling plan was 529.90 grams, which is
   over 500 grams.
          A rational jury could obviously rely on the forensic analyst’s
   uncontroverted testimony that the method he used to test the
   methamphetamine was consistent with industry practice. Simpson points to
   no authority showing that the industry-wide practice the forensic analyst
   used here was inaccurate or unreliable.
          AFFIRMED.

                                         7