Court Opinion

ID: 9838959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-09 00:00:26.191744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:58.767362
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40235         Document: 00516888514             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/08/2023

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

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                      September 8, 2023
                                       No. 22-40235
                                                                                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                           Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jonathan Rodriguez,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 2:19-CR-656-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Jonathan Rodriguez appeals his conviction for (1) conspiring to
   possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1),
   (b)(1)(A); (2) possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, see 21 U.S.C.
   § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); and (3) possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
   trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(2). The district court
   departed downward and sentenced Rodriguez to a below-Guidelines

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40235           Document: 00516888514                Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                             No. 22-40235

   sentence of 300 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
   ROA.793–94, 2284, 2869–70.
           Rodriguez raises nineteen issues on appeal.1 Four of the issues are
   directly foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States v. Romans, 823
   F.3d 299, 316 (5th Cir. 2016) (foreclosing the challenge to the application of
   the preponderance standard to his Guidelines range calculation); United
   States v. Bolton, 908 F.3d 75, 95 (5th Cir. 2018) (foreclosing the challenge to
   the district court’s consideration of acquitted conduct for sentencing

           _____________________
           1
               Rodriguez lists the following errors in his brief:
           (1) the district court erred by admitting illegally obtained evidence, (2)
           holding a pretrial hearing to admit evidence prejudiced the defense, (3) the
           court erred in admitting a drug buy video because it was unreliable and
           missing audio, (4) the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for
           conspiracy to possess crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute
           powder cocaine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
           trafficking crime, (5) the court excluded critical exculpatory evidence
           which deprived Rodriguez of his 14th Amendment right to due process and
           his 6th Amendment right to confrontation, (6) the offense of possessing a
           firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime is unconstitutional, (7)
           Rodriguez has been denied a complete record of the proceedings for his
           appeal, (8) a jury instruction [that] extraneous offenses must be proven
           beyond a reasonable doubt was not given, (9) the court erred by admitting,
           over objection, unverifiable and misleading testimony regarding drug
           distribution methods and theories, (10) the PSR’s factual narrative relied
           upon improper and unreliable facts, (11) preponderance of the evidence
           standard [is] unconstitutional for sentencing, (12) acquitted conduct
           should not be considered at sentencing, (13) violation of [the]
           Confrontation Clause during sentencing, (14) drug quantities were
           improperly calculated at sentencing, (15) premises enhancement was
           improper, (16) leadership enhancement was improper, (17) the mandatory
           minimum sentence and suggested guidelines for crack cocaine offenses
           violate equal protection clause, (18) a 300 month sentence was
           unreasonable, (19) Rodriguez’s return of property request should be
           granted and his objection to seizure should be sustained.
   See Blue Br. 11–13.

                                                    2
Case: 22-40235       Document: 00516888514         Page: 3    Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                    No. 22-40235

   purposes); United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006)
   (foreclosing the attempt to apply the Confrontation Clause to sentencing
   hearings); United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1992)
   (foreclosing the challenge to the sentencing disparity between powder and
   crack cocaine).
          The remaining fifteen issues fall into six different groups.
          First, Rodriguez challenges the district court’s denial of his
   suppression motion. We affirm the denial for substantially the reasons set out
   by the district court in its well-reasoned suppression order. ROA.3147–66.
          Second, Rodriguez raises three unpreserved challenges, which we
   review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 131 (2009).
   We conclude that the district court did not commit plain error when it
   (1) entered judgment against Rodriguez for possessing a firearm in
   furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, (2) instructed the jury that the burden
   of proof for extraneous offenses is beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) allowed
   testimony from a lay witness, based on his extensive knowledge and
   experience, about trap houses and drug ledgers.
          Third, Rodriguez argues the district court abused its discretion in
   choosing to admit and exclude certain pieces of evidence. We see no abuse of
   discretion as to any of the district court’s evidentiary decisions Rodriguez
   highlights.
          Fourth, Rodriguez argues the evidence is insufficient to support his
   three counts of conviction. Rodriguez preserved his sufficiency challenges,
   so we review them de novo. United States v. Moparty, 11 F.4th 280, 296 (5th
   Cir. 2021). This review is “highly deferential” to the jury’s verdict, and we
   will affirm if a rational jury could find that all elements of the crime were
   proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (citation omitted). After reviewing the
   record, we find there is ample evidence to support that Rodriguez conspired

                                          3
Case: 22-40235       Document: 00516888514          Page: 4   Date Filed: 09/08/2023

                                     No. 22-40235

   to possess with intent to distribute more than 280 grams of crack cocaine,
   possessed with intent to distribute the cocaine seized from the storage unit,
   and possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
            Fifth, Rodriguez argues the district court committed multiple
   sentencing errors. After careful review, we reject Rodriguez’s arguments and
   conclude the district court committed no reversible sentencing errors.
            Sixth, Rodriguez argues he is entitled to the return of his forfeited
   property. We find this argument inadequately briefed on appeal and therefore
   forfeited. See, e.g., Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir.
   2021).
            Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. IT IS
   FURTHER ORDERED that Rodriguez’s opposed motion to supplement
   the record on appeal is DENIED.

                                          4