Court Opinion

ID: 9963556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-25 19:01:44.285394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:52.584521
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13660    Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024   Page: 1 of 19

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-13660
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        VINCENT VO TRAN,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Alabama
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-00006-KD-MU-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024    Page: 2 of 19

        2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13660

        Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               A jury convicted Vincent Tran of conspiracy to distribute
        methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute meth-
        amphetamine. For those crimes, the district court sentenced him
        to 150 months’ imprisonment with ﬁve years of supervised release.
               Tran now appeals his convictions and sentence. He argues
        that the district court erred when it denied his suppression motion,
        the evidence was insuﬃcient to support his conspiracy conviction,
        and the district court erred when it imposed a sentence enhance-
        ment for methamphetamine importation.
              We aﬃrm Tran’s convictions. The district court did not err
        when it denied his suppression motion. And suﬃcient evidence
        supported the jury’s verdict on the conspiracy charge.
              We vacate Tran’s sentence and remand to the district court.
        The court erred when it imposed the importation enhancement
        because the government failed to prove, by a preponderance of the
        evidence, that Tran possessed imported methamphetamine.
                             I.     BACKGROUND
               Tran raises three issues on appeal, related to the search of
        his residence and his suppression motion, the evidence at his trial
        and his acquittal motion, and the sentence he received and his sen-
        tence enhancement. We describe an earlier search of where Tran
        was living and then detail the facts relevant to each issue.
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024    Page: 3 of 19

        22-13660              Opinion of the Court                        3

        A.    The First Search
               In the spring of 2021, deputies of the Mobile County Sher-
        iﬀ’s Oﬃce attempted to arrest Bailey Bostwick. But when deputies
        arrived in her neighborhood, she handed methamphetamine to her
        partner, Robert Draughon, and ﬂed. The deputies captured
        Draughon and arrested him for traﬃcking methamphetamine.
               Later that day, a deputy located Bostwick at Tran’s Irvington
        residence in Mobile. When deputies arrived there looking for
        Bostwick, Tran sent her outside. The deputies arrested Bostwick
        and searched her vehicle.
               That same day, deputy Raylene Busby of the Mobile County
        Sheriﬀ’s Oﬃce obtained a warrant to search Tran’s Irvington resi-
        dence. When deputies executed the warrant, they found marijuana
        and digital scales with methamphetamine residue. They arrested
        Tran for possession of a controlled substance and marijuana. Tran
        was incarcerated and then released in early fall. Upon his release,
        he lived with his girlfriend at a residence on Azalea Road.
        B.    The Second Search and Tran’s Suppression Motion
               In the fall of 2021, two months after Tran’s release, Busby
        obtained a second warrant to search the Azalea Road residence in
        Mobile, where Tran was living. Busby obtained this warrant be-
        cause a drug dealer she arrested told her that he bought more than
        a pound of methamphetamine from Tran.
              To obtain the Azalea Road warrant, she drafted and submit-
        ted an aﬃdavit, which alleged that cooperating defendants had
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024    Page: 4 of 19

        4                     Opinion of the Court                22-13660

        recently purchased marijuana and methamphetamine from Tran
        and seen ﬁrearms at his residence. The aﬃdavit stated that cooper-
        ating defendants believed Tran had large amounts of methamphet-
        amine delivered to his residence. And it noted that Tran was a tar-
        get of federal and state drug investigations.
                A state court judge issued the search warrant. When depu-
        ties, including Busby, executed the warrant, they discovered drugs
        and drug paraphernalia, including methamphetamine, cocaine,
        marijuana, a vacuum sealer, digital scales, and a glass pipe. The
        deputies then received and executed an arrest warrant. When they
        arrested Tran, they recovered approximately 26 grams of metham-
        phetamine from his person.
               A grand jury indicted Tran on one count of conspiracy to
        distribute methamphetamine, two counts of possession with intent
        to distribute methamphetamine, and one count of possessing a
        ﬁrearm in furtherance of a drug traﬃcking crime. Tran pleaded
        not guilty.
               Before trial, Tran moved to suppress evidence seized from
        the Azalea Road residence. He argued the district court should sup-
        press the evidence because a deﬁcient aﬃdavit supported the search
        warrant. Speciﬁcally, Tran asserted that the aﬃant, Busby, relied on
        others’ statements rather than her personal knowledge, failed to
        mention where she executed a previous search warrant, and failed
        to disclose the number of cooperating defendants. Tran argued
        that, under the totality of the circumstances, the aﬃdavit failed to
        establish the reliability, veracity, or basis of the cooperating
USCA11 Case: 22-13660         Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 04/25/2024   Page: 5 of 19

        22-13660                  Opinion of the Court                         5

        defendants’ knowledge. He also maintained that the good-faith ex-
        ception was inapplicable because the aﬃdavit so lacked probable
        cause that no reasonable oﬃcial would believe probable cause ex-
        isted to support the search.
               The district court held a suppression hearing, at which
        Busby testiﬁed. She described the events leading up to swearing the
        warrant aﬃdavit, including her search of Tran’s Irvington resi-
        dence and her separate interviews with the cooperating defend-
        ants. She explained that she had known the cooperating defendants
        for years and “had a history with both of them,” although she had
        used neither as an informant before. Doc. 92 at 56. 1 She included
        that information in her aﬃdavit, detailing Tran’s continuous in-
        volvement with drugs and noting other individuals who had iden-
        tiﬁed Tran as their supplier.
               Busby also testiﬁed that, after she submitted the aﬃdavit,
        she learned that Tran made additional drug transactions. To secure
        the search warrant, she visited the state court judge’s residence,
        presenting the aﬃdavit and the additional information about Tran’s
        recent drug activity. Busby believed the warrant “to be reasonable”
        and to contain “suﬃcient probable cause.” Id. at 75.
                The district court found the search warrant aﬃdavit insuﬃ-
        cient. It drew this conclusion based on the lack of corroboration of
        the cooperating defendants and the lack of evidence of their relia-
        bility. But the court found that the state court judge maintained his

        1 “Doc.” numbers are the district court’s docket entries.
USCA11 Case: 22-13660         Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 04/25/2024     Page: 6 of 19

        6                          Opinion of the Court                  22-13660

        neutral and detached role and that the aﬃdavit contained some in-
        dicia of probable cause, rendering Busby’s belief in the existence of
        probable cause reasonable. The district court therefore concluded
        that the oﬃcials relied in good faith on the search warrant. And
        because the oﬃcials relied in good faith on the warrant, the evi-
        dence was admissible. The district court denied the motion to sup-
        press.
        C.      The Conspiracy Evidence and Tran’s Acquittal Mo-
                tion
               At trial, the government attempted to demonstrate that
        Tran conspired with Bostwick, Draughon, and others to distribute
        methamphetamine. To prove this conspiracy, the government in-
        troduced drug distribution evidence it uncovered, Tran’s state-
        ments and cell phone evidence, and evidence from alleged cocon-
        spirators.2
               The government pointed to evidence uncovered during the
        searches and arrests to establish a conspiracy to distribute metham-
        phetamine. The ﬁrst search, for example, revealed digital scales
        with methamphetamine residue. The second search revealed even
        more: a bag of 18 grams of methamphetamine, a vacuum sealer,
        two digital scales, and a half pound of methamphetamine pack-
        aged in eight diﬀerent containers. When deputies arrested Tran,
        they found 26 grams of methamphetamine on his person.

        2 We recount the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict

        because this is a sufficiency challenge.
USCA11 Case: 22-13660      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2024     Page: 7 of 19

        22-13660               Opinion of the Court                        7

               The government also introduced Tran’s statements and evi-
        dence found on his cell phone. Tran told police, after being read his
        Miranda rights, that he owned the 26 grams of methamphetamine
        they found on him and that he dealt drugs. The government un-
        covered text messages and photographs from Tran’s phone as well.
        The messages discussed buying bags of drugs. The photographs
        depicted marijuana and a white substance. To explain the phone
        evidence, the government introduced testimony from Amber
        Westfall, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administra-
        tion, whom the district court qualiﬁed as a drug traﬃcking expert.
        Westfall discussed the text messages and how drug dealers com-
        municate. She admitted that Tran’s text messages appeared to focus
        on marijuana.
                In addition to the evidence uncovered from the search and
        arrest, Tran’s statements, and evidence from Tran’s phone, the gov-
        ernment introduced evidence from and about Tran’s alleged co-
        conspirators. One of those coconspirators was Bostwick, who tes-
        tiﬁed for the government. Bostwick admitted that she used meth-
        amphetamine with and purchased methamphetamine from Tran.
        She bought methamphetamine from Tran roughly once a week.
        She had been buying from Tran since March 2021 and had obtained
        between 10 and 20 ounces of methamphetamine from him, even
        though he was not her main source of methamphetamine. She said
        that she regularly distributed methamphetamine. And she testiﬁed
        that Tran supplied the methamphetamine she had handed to
        Draughon when she ﬂed the police. Police found 160 grams of
        methamphetamine when they arrested Draughon.
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2024    Page: 8 of 19

        8                     Opinion of the Court                22-13660

               Tran moved for a judgment of acquittal on the conspiracy
        count, which the district court denied. The jury found Tran guilty
        of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with
        intent to distribute methamphetamine. Tran renewed his acquittal
        motion, and the district court denied it.
        D.    Tran’s Sentencing
                Before sentencing, a probation oﬃcer prepared a presen-
        tence investigation report. The probation oﬃcer recommended a
        two-level enhancement because the oﬀense involved the importa-
        tion of methamphetamine. The following evidence was introduced
        at trial regarding importation. Westfall, the DEA special agent and
        drug traﬃcking expert, testiﬁed that drug traﬃcking operations in
        Houston and Atlanta sourced the methamphetamine found in Mo-
        bile. According to Westfall, if the methamphetamine came from
        Houston, the drug was “smuggled directly from Mexico.” Doc. 88
        at 209. If it came from Atlanta, the drug was smuggled from Miami
        or Texas. And she testiﬁed that “super labs” in Mexico made meth-
        amphetamine with a purity level of “about 99 percent.” Id. at 210–
        11. Based on her training and experience, Westfall said that meth-
        amphetamine located in Mobile with a 99 percent purity level
        “most likely originated from Mexico.” Id. at 212. Tran previously
        had stipulated that the methamphetamine the police recovered had
        a purity level above 99 percent.
              Tran objected to the enhancement, arguing that the govern-
        ment did not prove the factual basis for the importation enhance-
        ment by a preponderance of the evidence. He thought the
USCA11 Case: 22-13660         Document: 41-1   Date Filed: 04/25/2024      Page: 9 of 19

        22-13660                 Opinion of the Court                        9

        methamphetamine’s purity failed to prove whether it was imported
        from Mexico and Westfall’s testimony merely speculated that pos-
        sibility.
               The district court overruled Tran’s objection, ﬁnding suﬃ-
        cient evidence to support the importation enhancement. It im-
        posed the importation enhancement and sentenced Tran to 150
        months’ imprisonment, followed by ﬁve years of supervised re-
        lease. Tran timely appealed.
                        II.      STANDARDS OF REVIEW
               We use “a mixed standard” to review a district court’s denial
        of a suppression motion, reviewing for clear error the district
        court’s factual findings and reviewing de novo “the application of
        law to those facts.” United States v. Pierre, 825 F.3d 1183, 1191 (11th
        Cir. 2016). We “constru[e] the facts in the light most favorable to”
        the government, which is “the prevailing party below.” Id. We re-
        view de novo “whether the good faith exception applies” but review
        for clear error “the underlying facts upon which that determination
        is based.” United States v. Morales, 987 F.3d 966, 974 (11th Cir. 2021)
        (internal quotation marks omitted). “The government bears the
        burden of demonstrating that the good faith exception applies.” Id.
               We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges de novo,
        considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the govern-
        ment and drawing all reasonable inferences and credibility choices
        in the government’s favor. United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286,
        1296 (11th Cir. 2013). We may overturn a jury’s verdict only if no
USCA11 Case: 22-13660      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024      Page: 10 of 19

        10                      Opinion of the Court                  22-13660

        reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the
        jury to convict. Id. at 1297.
               When looking at Tran’s sentencing, we review the district
        court’s factual findings for clear error and its application of the Sen-
        tencing Guidelines de novo. United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d
        779, 783 (11th Cir. 2007). The government bears the burden of es-
        tablishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, the facts necessary
        to support a sentencing enhancement. Id.
                                III.   DISCUSSION
               We organize our discussion around the three issues Tran
        raises on appeal.
        A.     Whether the District Court Erred in Denying Tran’s
               Suppression Motion
               The district court did not err when it denied Tran’s suppres-
        sion motion because the Fourth Amendment’s good-faith excep-
        tion to the exclusionary rule applies. The Fourth Amendment re-
        quires that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, sup-
        ported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
        to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const.
        amend. IV. To deter Fourth Amendment violations, the Supreme
        Court created the exclusionary rule, which generally “preclude[es]
        the use of evidence obtained in violation of” the Fourth Amend-
        ment. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 906 (1984).
              The “judicially created [exclusionary] rule” has a “judicially
        created exception”: the good-faith exception. Davis v. United States,
USCA11 Case: 22-13660      Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 04/25/2024      Page: 11 of 19

        22-13660                Opinion of the Court                          11

        564 U.S. 229, 248 (2011). The good-faith exception renders the ex-
        clusionary rule inapplicable when police act “in objectively reason-
        able reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant.” Leon,
        468 U.S. at 922. The exception is unavailable when (1) the judge
        who issues a warrant is misled by false information; (2) the issuing
        judge abandons his neutral and detached role; (3) the affidavit lacks
        probable cause indicia, rending official belief in its existence unrea-
        sonable; or (4) the warrant is facially deficient, rendering official re-
        liance on it unreasonable. Id. at 923. When the exception is availa-
        ble, it requires us to ask only “whether a reasonably well trained
        officer would have known that the search was illegal in light of all
        of the circumstances.” Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 145
        (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
               Tran argues that the good-faith exception is inapplicable,
        stating that the issuing judge abandoned his neutral and detached
        role, and the affidavit lacked probable cause indicia. Both argu-
        ments fail.
                The issuing judge, Tran argues, abandoned his neutral role
        because the information provided to him was insufficient to make
        an independent assessment of probable cause. But even if this in-
        formation were insufficient, it does not mean that the issuing judge
        abandoned his neutral and detached role. See United States v. Martin,
        297 F.3d 1308, 1318 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Just because the affidavit is
        later found to be lacking in probable cause does not mean the [is-
        suing judge] served as a mere rubber stamp.”). That is because
        when we analyze whether the issuing judge abandoned his neutral
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024     Page: 12 of 19

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13660

        and detached role, we rarely look to the affidavit itself. Rather, we
        analyze surrounding factors, such as whether the judge read the
        affidavit, whether he relied solely on his relationship with the affi-
        ant, or whether the affiant’s identity interfered with the judge’s in-
        dependent review of the case’s facts. Id. Tran has not argued, and
        the record does not reveal, any surrounding circumstances that
        cause us to question the issuing judge’s neutrality and detachment.
                We do, however, look to the affidavit to determine whether
        it lacks probable cause indicia. United States v. Robinson, 336 F.3d
        1293, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003). To be lacking in probable cause indicia,
        the affidavit must “provide[] no hint as to why the police believed
        they would find incriminating evidence in the residence.” United
        States v. Morales, 987 F.3d 966, 976 (11th Cir. 2021) (internal quota-
        tion marks omitted). The affidavit here provides many hints about
        why the police believed they would find illegal drugs in the Azalea
        Road residence. For example, the affiant spoke with cooperating
        defendants who stated that they purchased marijuana and meth-
        amphetamine from someone in the Azalea Road residence. The co-
        operating defendants also reported that they saw methampheta-
        mine at the residence and being delivered to it.
               True, the district court found that these statements failed to
        provide sufficient probable cause due to the lack of corroboration
        and reliability. But that does mean the affidavit provides no hints
        as to why the police thought they would uncover marijuana and
        methamphetamine at the Azalea Road residence. And, as detailed
        above, this affidavit provides those hints.
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024    Page: 13 of 19

        22-13660               Opinion of the Court                       13

               Because the good-faith exception is available, we must ask
        whether, considering all the circumstances, a reasonably well-
        trained officer would have known that the search was illegal. See
        Herring, 555 U.S. at 145. We conclude that a reasonably well-
        trained officer would not have known that the search was illegal.
        The affidavit contained the exact location to be searched and ex-
        plained how the suspected drugs were connected to that place. And
        “we can look beyond the four corners of the affidavit and search
        warrant to determine whether [an officer] reasonably relied upon
        the warrant.” Martin, 297 F.3d at 1318.
               When we look beyond the affidavit at the totality of the cir-
        cumstances, we conclude that Busby reasonably believed that
        probable cause existed when she executed the warrant. She learned
        from a cooperating defendant that Tran sold him methampheta-
        mine and lived at the Azalea Road residence. Another cooperating
        defendant told her that Tran had large amounts of methampheta-
        mine and marijuana, and Busby had reviewed emails between a
        cooperating defendant and Tran. She knew about other investiga-
        tions into Tran’s suspected drug activity. On these facts, a well-
        trained officer with Busby’s knowledge would not have known
        that the search was illegal. The district court therefore did not err
        when it applied the good-faith exception and denied Tran’s sup-
        pression motion.
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024     Page: 14 of 19

        14                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13660

        B.     Whether the Evidence Was Sufficient to Support
               Tran’s Conspiracy Conviction
                The evidence was sufficient to support Tran’s conspiracy
        conviction. To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the government
        had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tran and at least one
        other person agreed to commit a drug-related offense, that Tran
        knew of the conspiracy, and that he agreed to become a member.
        United States v. Louis, 861 F.3d 1330, 1333 (11th Cir. 2017) (citing
        21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846). In his brief, Tran appears to contest only the
        first element, whether an “agreement exist[ed] between two or
        more person to achieve an unlawful objective.” United States v.
        Achey, 943 F.3d 909, 916 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks
        omitted). He argues that the government failed to prove an agree-
        ment because the text messages introduced concern marijuana, not
        methamphetamine. And he states that the government failed be-
        cause Tran’s relationship with Bostwick was a buyer-seller relation-
        ship, which “does not, by itself, form a conspiracy.” Id. at 917. Each
        argument fails.
               First, Tran argues that the text messages “fail to provide suf-
        ficient evidence of a methamphetamine conspiracy.” Appellant’s
        Br. 40. Two issues exist with this argument. The first is that suffi-
        cient evidence exists for the conspiracy conviction even without
        the text messages. As discussed below, the frequency of metham-
        phetamine sales, volume of methamphetamine sold, and circum-
        stantial evidence provide sufficient evidence for Tran’s conspiracy
        conviction. The second issue is that the text messages’ focus on ma-
        rijuana fails to undermine the methamphetamine conviction. In
USCA11 Case: 22-13660      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024     Page: 15 of 19

        22-13660               Opinion of the Court                         15

        fact, it may even bolster the conviction. Westfall testified that it
        was common for individuals engaged in the trafficking of metham-
        phetamine to sell other drugs as well. Tran’s text message argu-
        ment therefore fails.
               Second, Tran argues that he and Bostwick “shared no more
        than a buyer/seller relationship.” Id. at 49. But here, sufficient evi-
        dence existed for the jury to believe that Tran “knew the drugs
        were for distribution” rather than Bostwick’s “personal drug
        habit.” Achey, 943 F.3d at 917 (internal quotation marks omitted).
        Specifically, the frequency of methamphetamine sales, volume of
        methamphetamine sold, and circumstantial evidence of a metham-
        phetamine conspiracy were sufficient evidence to prove the agree-
        ment.
               On frequency, we have held that an “agreement may be in-
        ferred when the evidence shows a continuing relationship that re-
        sults in the repeated transfer of illegal drugs to the purchaser.”
        United States v. Mercer, 165 F.3d 1331, 1335 (11th Cir. 1999). The gov-
        ernment presented to the jury evidence of a continuing relation-
        ship. Bostwick admitted to buying methamphetamine from Tran
        roughly once a week since March 2021. That exceeds the frequency
        we have found suﬃcient in past cases. See, e.g., United States v.
        Beasley, 2 F.3d 1551, 1560 (11th Cir. 1993) (concluding that evidence
        established “far more than merely a buyer-seller relationship” in
        part because the buyer “purchased [illegal drugs] from [the seller]
        on several occasions” over a month).
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2024    Page: 16 of 19

        16                    Opinion of the Court                22-13660

               On volume, we have held that a “conspiracy to distribute
        controlled substances may also be inferred from a drug transaction
        where the amount of drugs allows an inference of a conspiracy to
        distribute drugs.” Achey, 943 F.3d at 917. The government presented
        evidence that Tran sold and moved large quantities of metham-
        phetamine. Bostwick, for example, testiﬁed that she obtained be-
        tween 10 and 20 ounces of methamphetamine from Tran. And the
        methamphetamine Tran provided to her shortly before her arrest
        weighed over 160 grams, or 5.6 ounces. These large amounts of
        methamphetamine allowed to jury to infer an agreement.
               On circumstantial evidence, we have held that the existence
        of a conspiracy agreement may be proved “from the conduct of
        the alleged participants or from circumstantial evidence of a
        scheme.” United States v. Wenxia Man, 891 F.3d 1253, 1265 (11th Cir.
        2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). Alleged participant
        Bostwick testiﬁed that she distributed methamphetamine regularly.
        The government introduced physical evidence that allowed the
        jury to infer that Tran was involved in a scheme. When oﬃcers
        searched Tran’s home, they uncovered multiple sets of scales, some
        with methamphetamine residue on them. They also found a bag of
        18 grams of methamphetamine, a vacuum sealer, and a half pound
        of methamphetamine packaged in eight diﬀerent packages.
        Bostwick’s admission and the physical evidence could lead a jury to
        infer an agreement.
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024     Page: 17 of 19

        22-13660               Opinion of the Court                        17

               Because the evidence sufficiently supported the conspiracy
        conviction, the district court did not err when it denied Tran’s ac-
        quittal motion.
        C.    Whether the District Court Erred in Imposing the Im-
              portation Sentence Enhancement
                 The district court erred when it overruled Tran’s objection
        and imposed a two-level enhancement for importing methamphet-
        amine. The Sentencing Guidelines instruct a court to impose a two-
        level enhancement if among other things “the oﬀense involved the
        importation of . . . methamphetamine or the manufacture
        of . . . methamphetamine from listed chemicals that the defendant
        knew were imported unlawfully.” U.S. Sent’g Guidelines Manual
        § 2D1.1(b)(5).
               The government had to prove, by a preponderance of the
        evidence, that a factual basis existed for this sentencing enhance-
        ment. See United States v. Perez-Oliveros, 479 F.3d at 783. A district
        court cannot “speculate concerning the existence of a fact which
        would permit a more severe sentence under the guidelines.” United
        States v. Cataldo, 171 F.3d 1316, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal
        quotation marks omitted). A court, instead, must base its factual
        ﬁndings “on reliable and speciﬁc evidence.” United States v. Newman,
        614 F.3d 1232, 1238 (11th Cir. 2010).
              Here, the government failed to produce reliable and speciﬁc
        evidence to support the importation enhancement. The govern-
        ment, and the district court, relied exclusively on Westfall’s testi-
        mony that methamphetamine in Mobile with a purity level of 99
USCA11 Case: 22-13660     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 04/25/2024     Page: 18 of 19

        18                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13660

        percent or higher “most likely originated from Mexico.” Doc. 88 at
        212. But Westfall failed to provide reliable and speciﬁc evidence that
        the methamphetamine Tran possessed came from Mexico. She tes-
        tiﬁed that most methamphetamine in Mobile came from Houston
        or Atlanta. The methamphetamine from Houston was “smuggled
        directly from Mexico” and the methamphetamine from Atlanta
        came from Miami or Texas. Tran’s methamphetamine could have
        come from any of those places: Miami, Texas, or Mexico. Thus, it
        was speculative to conclude that Tran’s methamphetamine came
        from Mexico.
                The government cites one unpublished case to support the
        district court’s determination. Appellee’s Br. 27 (citing United
        States v. Rivera-Fernandez, No. 19-12990, 2021 WL 6144162 (11th
        Cir. Dec. 30, 2021) (unpublished)). But even in that case, the gov-
        ernment provided more than just an agent’s testimony about
        where the drugs may or may not have originated. In addition to a
        Drug Enforcement Administration report like the agent’s testi-
        mony here, the government in that case “provided the district court
        with messages between the methamphetamine supplier in Mexico
        and a co-defendant” and “submitted an additional conversation be-
        tween the supplier and an undercover agent.” Rivera-Fernandez,
        2021 WL 6144162, at *3. But here, the government has provided
        nothing further. Because the government failed to provide reliable
        and speciﬁc evidence supporting that the methamphetamine recov-
        ered from Tran originated in Mexico, the district court erred when
        it imposed the importation enhancement.
USCA11 Case: 22-13660    Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 04/25/2024     Page: 19 of 19

        22-13660              Opinion of the Court                      19

                             IV.    CONCLUSION
              For the reasons given above, we affirm Tran’s convictions,
        vacate the district court’s sentence, and remand for resentencing.
            AFFIRMED          IN   PART;      VACATED        IN      PART;
        REMANDED.