Court Opinion

ID: 9926332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 17:00:56.673447+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:44.510747
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14125    Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/24/2024   Page: 1 of 11

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                           ____________________

                                 No. 22-14125
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
        versus
        JOSE ALEXIS GUTIERREZ,
        a.k.a. Jose Gutierrez,

                                                    Defendant-Appellant.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 0:22-cr-60025-AHS-2
USCA11 Case: 22-14125      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 01/24/2024     Page: 2 of 11

        2                      Opinion of the Court                22-14125

                             ____________________

        Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                Jose Alexis Gutierrez was convicted of distributing a
        controlled substance, conspiring to distribute a controlled
        substance, and carrying a firearm in furtherance of a drug-
        trafficking crime. Gutierrez appeals these convictions, arguing that
        there was insufficient evidence to support them and that the district
        court erred by admitting certain evidence, issuing incorrect jury
        instructions, and denying a minor-role sentencing reduction.
        Because the district court did not err, we affirm.
                                         I.
               Gutierrez was convicted of various drug offenses in
        violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and § 846 as well as 18 U.S.C.
        § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Officers had set up a controlled buy involving
        Gutierrez and co-conspirator German Luna Tenorio. One
        undercover officer had agreed to meet with Tenorio to buy
        methamphetamine at a specified location; officers then monitored
        the sale via hidden recording devices.
               Gutierrez drove Tenorio to the drug sale. When they
        arrived, the pair unstrapped two bins from the bed of their truck
        and carried them inside a building, with the undercover officer
        following. The officer then opened the bins and found forty clear
        bags containing a substance that looked like methamphetamine.
        Tenorio gave one of these bags to Gutierrez. A field test of that
USCA11 Case: 22-14125      Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 01/24/2024     Page: 3 of 11

        22-14125               Opinion of the Court                        3

        bag later confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine. In
        total, Gutierrez and Tenorio were carrying 17.6 kilograms of
        methamphetamine.
               Tenorio vouched for the authenticity of the drug, calling it
        “pure fire,” and Gutierrez affirmed, stating “that is how it came.”
        The undercover officer agreed to the sale. Gutierrez helped the
        officer unload the bags from one bin, snorting and licking the
        methamphetamine off his fingers. Tenorio then requested
        $160,000 for the sale, at which point law enforcement arrested both
        men. During a post-arrest search, officers found a fully loaded
        handgun in Gutierrez’s waistband.
                While Gutierrez first denied his involvement, he later
        admitted to participating in the drug deal. He confessed that
        Tenorio had told him about the drugs and paid him $1,500 to drive
        that day. He further stated that he knew he was “coming down for
        this,” seemingly referencing the drug deal. And he confirmed that
        the gun was his, but that he carried it for self-protection.
               Gutierrez and Tenorio were tried for distributing a
        controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) and
        conspiring to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21
        U.S.C. § 846. Gutierrez was also separately tried for carrying a
        firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime in violation of 18
        U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Before trial, Gutierrez moved to exclude
        recordings and photographs of him ingesting methamphetamine
        during the drug sale. The district court denied his motion, and the
        evidence was admitted at trial. Gutierrez himself also testified at
USCA11 Case: 22-14125      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/24/2024     Page: 4 of 11

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-14125

        trial that he consumed methamphetamine during the sale. After
        the government presented its case, Gutierrez moved for a
        judgment of acquittal, which the district court denied.
                Before closing arguments, the district court accepted a
        voluntary-intoxication jury instruction requested by the
        government, informing the jury that “[e]vidence of a defendant’s
        voluntary intoxication may not be taken into consideration to
        show that he lacked the intent to commit a crime.” The jury
        ultimately convicted Gutierrez of all charges. After the verdict,
        Gutierrez renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal, which the
        district court again denied.
               The presentencing investigation report recommended a
        sentence between 262- and 327-months incarceration. Gutierrez
        objected, arguing for a minor-role reduction. The district court
        rejected this request, but still sentenced him below the
        recommended range to 222-months incarceration.
               Gutierrez now appeals his conviction and sentence on four
        grounds. First, the evidence supporting his conviction was
        insufficient. Second, the district court erred by admitting recordings
        of his drug use. Third, the district court erred by instructing the
        jury as to voluntary intoxication. And fourth, the district court
        improperly failed to apply a minor-role reduction to Gutierrez’s
        sentence calculation.
                                         II.
              We begin by addressing Gutierrez’s argument that there
        was insufficient evidence supporting his conviction. We review de
USCA11 Case: 22-14125      Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/24/2024      Page: 5 of 11

        22-14125               Opinion of the Court                          5

        novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, “drawing all
        reasonable inferences in the government’s favor.” United States v.
        Hernandez, 433 F.3d 1328, 1332 (11th Cir. 2005) (quotation
        omitted). Evidence is sufficient so long as “a reasonable trier of fact
        could find that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable
        doubt.” United States v. Maurya, 25 F.4th 829, 841 (11th Cir. 2022)
        (quotation omitted). “The test for sufficiency of evidence is
        identical regardless of whether the evidence is direct or
        circumstantial, and no distinction is to be made between the
        weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.” United
        States v. Mieres-Borges, 919 F.2d 652, 656–57 (11th Cir. 1990)
        (quotation omitted).
               Gutierrez was charged with violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a),
        21 U.S.C. § 846, and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). To obtain a
        conviction under § 841(a), the government must prove knowledge,
        possession, and intent to distribute. United States v. Poole, 878 F.2d
        1389, 1391 (11th Cir. 1989). For a conviction under § 846, the
        government must show that there was an agreement to violate
        § 841(a)(1). United States v. Duldulao, 87 F.4th 1239, 1252–53 (11th
        Cir. 2023). And with respect to § 924(c)(1)(A), the government is
        required to establish that the defendant possessed a firearm which
        “helped, furthered, promoted, or advanced the drug trafficking.”
        United States v. Mercer, 541 F.3d 1070, 1076 (11th Cir. 2008)
        (quotation omitted).
              The record contains sufficient evidence to support
        Gutierrez’s convictions on all of these charges. Although he
USCA11 Case: 22-14125     Document: 41-1       Date Filed: 01/24/2024   Page: 6 of 11

        6                     Opinion of the Court                22-14125

        contests knowing about the drug-trafficking plan, Gutierrez
        admitted that he was told about the drugs and that he then agreed
        to drive Tenorio to the location of the drug deal. Gutierrez was
        also recorded alongside Tenorio vouching for the quality of the
        drugs during the sale. This is enough evidence for a reasonable
        jury to infer that Gutierrez knowingly possessed drugs with the
        intent to distribute them, and that he agreed to help Tenorio sell
        the drugs.
               As for his gun possession conviction, Gutierrez argues that
        he legally possessed the gun. That may be so, but it does not
        matter for purposes of § 924(c)(1)(A). So long as “the firearm was
        readily available in the same room” where “drugs were being
        packaged for sale,” the “evidence presented was sufficient” to
        support a § 924(c)(1)(A) conviction. Mercer, 541 F.3d at 1077.
        Gutierrez himself admitted that he had a gun throughout the drug
        sale. The evidence was thus sufficient to support his conviction.
                                        III.
               Gutierrez next argues that the district court erred by
        admitting evidence of his methamphetamine consumption and by
        instructing the jury as to the voluntary-intoxication defense. We
        review a district court’s evidentiary decisions for abuse of
        discretion. United States v. Clay, 832 F.3d 1259, 1314 (11th Cir.
        2016). A district court likewise has broad discretion in instructing
        the jury “within the confines of the law and the facts at hand.”
        United States v. Orr, 825 F.2d 1537, 1542 (11th Cir. 1987). Both
        evidence admission and jury instructions are subject to harmless-
USCA11 Case: 22-14125     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/24/2024    Page: 7 of 11

        22-14125              Opinion of the Court                        7

        error analysis, meaning a conviction will not be reversed if the
        “error complained of did not contribute to the verdict.” Clay, 832
        F.3d at 1310–11 n.26 (quotation omitted); United States v. Pon, 963
        F.3d 1207, 1221, 1227 (11th Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted).
                                        A.
               Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) generally prohibits evidence
        of a past crime or wrongdoing to show a person’s propensity to
        commit such crimes or wrongdoings. United States v. Sterling, 738
        F.3d 228, 237 (11th Cir. 2013). But evidence of prior crimes is
        permissible where it is “probative for some other purpose, such as
        proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,
        knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Id.
        (quotation omitted). We apply a three-part test for determining
        whether evidence of prior crimes is admissible under Rule 404(b),
        asking whether 1) the evidence is “relevant to an issue other than
        the defendant’s character”; 2) there is sufficient evidence for the
        “jury to find that the defendant committed the extrinsic act”; and
        3) the undue prejudice of the evidence substantially outweighs the
        probative value. Id. at 238.
               The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
        evidence of Gutierrez consuming methamphetamine during the
        drug sale. Gutierrez claims that the recordings of his drug use were
        inadmissible under Rule 404(b) because they were used to show his
        propensity to commit drug crimes. But the evidence meets our
        three-part test for Rule 404(b). As to the first prong, the record
        reflects that the evidence was relevant for another purpose:
USCA11 Case: 22-14125         Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 01/24/2024         Page: 8 of 11

        8                         Opinion of the Court                       22-14125

        establishing Gutierrez’s knowledge of the drugs. See id. at 237–38.
        As to the second prong, we already discussed above that there was
        sufficient evidence outside of the recordings to suggest Gutierrez
        was involved in the drug sale. And as to the third prong, the
        probative value here is not substantially outweighed by any
        prejudicial effect because Gutierrez himself made knowledge a
        contested issue by claiming he was an unknowing participant in the
        drug deal. See United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324, 1345 (11th
        Cir. 2007). The admission of evidence here thus did not violate
        Rule 404(b). And even if the evidence was improperly admitted,
        any error was harmless given that there was otherwise sufficient
        evidence supporting the conviction.
                                              B.
                We generally “will not reverse a conviction based on a jury
        instruction challenge unless we are left with a substantial and
        ineradicable doubt as to whether the jury was properly guided in
        its deliberations.” Clay, 832 F.3d at 1310 (quotation omitted). So
        long as jury instructions “accurately express the law applicable to
        the case without confusing or prejudicing the jury, there is no
        reason for reversal.” Id. (quotation omitted). A court may instruct
        a jury as to a defense not raised by a defendant if it would aid in
        guiding the jury. See Almendarez v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry.
        Co., 426 F.2d 1095, 1098 (5th Cir. 1970). 1

        1 Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit “as that

        court existed on September 30, 1981, handed down by that court prior to the
USCA11 Case: 22-14125        Document: 41-1        Date Filed: 01/24/2024        Page: 9 of 11

        22-14125                  Opinion of the Court                              9

                Here, the district court instructed the jury on the voluntary-
        intoxication defense. Gutierrez does not challenge the district
        court’s phrasing of the instruction or the legal standards articulated
        in it. Instead, he argues that the district court erred by giving the
        instruction at all because he never argued voluntary intoxication as
        part of his defense.
                Even though Gutierrez never raised the defense himself, the
        district court’s instruction as to the voluntary-intoxication defense
        was reasonable given that there was evidence of Gutierrez’s drug
        use and prior addiction. It thus would aid the jury to know that
        voluntary intoxication may not be taken into consideration to
        show that Gutierrez lacked intent to commit a crime. And even if
        the instruction was improperly given, it is not clear (and Gutierrez
        fails to explain) why this would warrant a reversal of his conviction.
        The district court’s phrasing of the instruction was not improper,
        and there is nothing to suggest that it misled or prejudiced the jury.
        See Clay, 832 F.3d at 1310.
                                             IV.
                Lastly, we address whether the district court erred by
        denying Gutierrez’s request for a minor-role reduction. We review
        for clear error a district court’s denial of a role reduction. United
        States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1320 (11th Cir. 2010). Section
        3B1.2(b) of the Guidelines allows for a decreased offense level if

        close of business on that date” are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.
        Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
USCA11 Case: 22-14125     Document: 41-1     Date Filed: 01/24/2024    Page: 10 of 11

        10                    Opinion of the Court                22-14125

        “the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal activity.”
        U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 3B1.2(b) (Nov. 2023). Two principles
        guide whether a defendant is entitled to a role reduction: “(1) the
        court must compare the defendant’s role in the offense with the
        relevant conduct attributed to him in calculating his base offense
        level; and (2) the court may compare the defendant’s conduct to
        that of other participants involved in the offense.” Bernal-Benitez,
        594 F.3d at 1320 (quotation omitted). A “defendant is not
        automatically entitled to a minor role adjustment merely because”
        he was “somewhat less culpable than the other discernable
        participants.” Id. at 1320–21 (quotation omitted).
               Here, Gutierrez claims that he is entitled to a minor-role
        reduction because he was subservient to Tenorio and due to
        receive less than one percent of the drug sale proceeds. But
        Gutierrez is not entitled to a minor-role adjustment “simply by
        pointing to some broader criminal scheme” in which he was a
        minor participant. See United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d
        930, 941 (11th Cir. 1999). Instead, we must consider his actual role
        in the offense. Gutierrez transported and assisted in the
        distribution of 17.6 kilograms of methamphetamine, all while
        being armed. That is sufficient to conclude that his role was not
        minor. See id. at 942–44.
                                  *      *      *
              We reject all of Gutierrez’s arguments on appeal. The
        record reflects that there was sufficient evidence to support his
        convictions. The district court did not err by admitting evidence
USCA11 Case: 22-14125     Document: 41-1      Date Filed: 01/24/2024     Page: 11 of 11

        22-14125               Opinion of the Court                        11

        of his drug use, instructing the jury as to voluntary intoxication, or
        denying him a minor-role reduction. We therefore AFFIRM.