United States v. Garcia ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                   FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                           January 23, 2019
    _________________________________
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.                                                           No. 18-5012
    (D.C. No. 4:17-CR-00021-GKF-1)
    JUAN GARCIA, a/k/a Shorty,                                   (N.D. Okla.)
    Defendant - Appellant.
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    _________________________________
    Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    Following a jury trial, Juan Garcia was convicted of participating in a drug
    conspiracy in violation of 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 846
     and 841(b)(1)(A)(viii). On appeal,
    Garcia claims the district court erred by refusing to dismiss the indictment on the
    ground that the government’s deportation of a witness before trial violated his Fifth
    Amendment right to due process and his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory
    process. He also appeals his 170-month within-guidelines prison sentence, claiming
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
    except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
    may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    it is substantively unreasonable because the district court over-emphasized the need
    for deterrence and did not give sufficient weight to his mitigating evidence.
    Exercising jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    18 U.S.C. § 3742
    (a), we affirm.
    Background
    In connection with an investigation into Antonio Martinez, a drug dealer in
    Oklahoma City, DEA officers learned that a vehicle carrying methamphetamine
    would be traveling from Oklahoma City to Tulsa on January 26, 2017. While
    surveilling the car by helicopter and on the ground, officers saw it stop at a gas
    station parking lot. The driver exited the car, walked over to a truck parked in the
    same lot, opened a passenger side door, then returned to the car carrying a box. The
    car got back on the highway and headed toward Tulsa with the truck traveling in
    tandem.
    Officers conducted separate traffic stops of both vehicles. After a drug dog
    alerted on the car, officers searched it and found a cardboard box containing nearly
    three pounds of methamphetamine on the backseat. Gustavo Flores was driving the
    car, with Joel Ulloa as a passenger. Officers arrested Flores and Ulloa, who both
    made statements indicating that they had received the methamphetamine from the
    truck and that the truck was traveling with them to ensure that the drug deal was
    completed.
    Officers at the car radioed these developments to the officers who had stopped
    the truck. The same drug dog—trained to detect residual drug odors—also alerted on
    the passenger door of the truck, where Garcia had been sitting. Officers at the truck
    2
    arrested Garcia and Roberto Dominguez, the driver of the truck. Garcia told officers
    he was riding to Tulsa with Dominguez because he planned to purchase a car there
    with the approximately $20,000 in cash he was carrying. The officers were unable to
    speak with Dominguez because he did not speak or understand English.
    Dominguez, Garcia, Martinez, and Ulloa were charged with a federal drug
    conspiracy; Flores, a minor, was not formally charged. Shortly thereafter, the
    government moved to dismiss the indictment against Dominguez. After the court
    granted the motion, Dominguez was transferred to the custody of Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement (ICE) and was deported three weeks later after stipulating to
    removal. Martinez and Ulloa entered into plea agreements, and Flores entered into a
    pretrial diversion agreement. The government obtained a superseding indictment
    against Garcia, charging him with a broader drug conspiracy between November
    2016 and the January 26, 2017, traffic stop.
    Garcia moved to dismiss the indictment based on the government’s deportation
    of Dominguez. For reasons discussed more fully below, the district court denied the
    motion, concluding that there was no evidence suggesting that the government had
    acted in bad faith in deporting Dominguez or that his deportation prejudiced the
    defense.
    At trial, Flores and Martinez both identified Garcia, whom they knew as
    “Shorty,” as the supplier of the methamphetamine they distributed between the dates
    charged in the indictment. Flores testified that Martinez had arranged for Flores to
    pick up methamphetamine from Garcia on numerous occasions and had given him
    3
    Garcia’s phone number to facilitate the transactions. Martinez confirmed that Flores
    had made multiple deliveries of methamphetamine for him and that Garcia was his
    supplier.
    With respect to the January 26, 2017, transaction, Flores explained that Garcia
    told him to meet him at the gas station, where he would be waiting in a blue truck.
    Flores and Garcia communicated by texts and calls during the drive. When he
    arrived at the gas station, Flores parked the car and went to the back of the truck,
    where he saw Garcia in the passenger seat and a man he had never seen before in the
    driver’s seat. Pointing to the methamphetamine, Garcia told Flores “it was there” in
    a box. R. Vol. I at 552. Flores took the box, returned to the car, and continued to
    drive toward Tulsa, where he was to deliver the drugs. Video recorded by the
    Oklahoma Highway Patrol helicopter corroborated Flores’s account of the events of
    January 26, and agents and officers described the traffic stops and the seizure of the
    methamphetamine, cash, and phones.
    Phone records for the cell phones seized from the vehicles revealed ongoing
    communications between Garcia, Flores, and Martinez between November 2016 and
    January 2017. Flores and Martinez both identified calls and texts between them and
    Garcia, including texts with a picture of methamphetamine. Martinez also identified
    texts with the buyer and Garcia to arrange the January 26 transaction. Those texts
    discussed the pick-up and drop-off points and indicated that Garcia was planning to
    follow Flores while he delivered the drugs.
    4
    Garcia admitted that he was known as “Shorty” but denied being involved in
    drug trafficking. Consistent with his statements to police at the time of his arrest,
    Garcia testified that he was riding with Dominguez to Tulsa to purchase a car and
    that he had the cash, which he had saved through his cash-based construction
    clean-up business, for that purpose.
    During deliberations, the jury asked about the availability of video evidence,
    indicating that it was “[l]ooking for credibility of witnesses.” 
    Id. at 821
    ; Vol. II
    at 20. With the parties’ agreement, the court told the jury that it had the evidence
    necessary to render a verdict. 
    Id.
     Vol. I at 821; Vol. II at 20. After deliberating for
    an additional ten minutes, the jury found Garcia guilty of the charged conspiracy.
    The district court adopted the advisory sentencing guideline range proposed in
    the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), and after denying Garcia’s motion for a
    downward variance, imposed a mid-range sentence of 170 months in prison.
    Discussion
    A. Denial of Motion to Dismiss
    Garcia claims the government’s deportation of Dominguez violated his rights
    to due process and compulsory process, and that the district court erred in denying
    his motion to dismiss the indictment on that basis. We disagree.
    We review the denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment for an abuse of
    discretion. United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 
    441 F.3d 1252
    , 1265 (10th Cir. 2006).
    A district court abuses its discretion if its decision “is based upon an error of law or a
    clearly erroneous finding of fact.” United States v. Lin Lyn Trading, Ltd., 
    149 F.3d
                             5
    1112, 1117 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United
    States v. Barajas-Chavez, 
    358 F.3d 1263
    , 1267 (10th Cir. 2004) (explaining that an
    appellate court will affirm the denial of a motion to dismiss “unless there is a distinct
    showing it was based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an erroneous
    conclusion of law or manifests a clear error of judgment” (internal quotation marks
    omitted)).
    To obtain dismissal of an indictment based on the government’s deportation of
    a witness, the defendant must show both that the government acted in bad faith and
    that the deportation prejudiced the defense by eliminating testimonial evidence that
    would have been “material and favorable to the defense.” United States v.
    Iribe-Perez, 
    129 F.3d 1167
    , 1173 (10th Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    A court may deny a motion to dismiss based on the defendant’s failure to satisfy
    either the bad faith or the prejudice prong. See United States v. Caballero, 
    277 F.3d 1235
    , 1242 (10th Cir. 2002) (concluding that the “failure to show the materiality of
    [the deported witness’s] lost testimony absolves [the court] of examining the bad
    faith prong”); see also Iribe-Perez, 
    129 F.3d at 1173-74
     (affirming denial of motion
    to dismiss based on defendant’s failure to prove lost testimony was material and
    favorable, and not addressing whether the government acted in bad faith in allowing
    witness’s voluntary departure).
    With respect to bad faith, we note that this circuit has not yet decided what the
    standard is for determining when the government’s deportation of a witness is in bad
    6
    faith,1 and the parties disagree about both what that standard should be and whether
    the district court erred in concluding that Garcia was required to show that the
    government’s “motivation [for the deportation] was to tactically disadvantage the
    defense.” R. Vol. I at 272. We conclude that we need not resolve these issues,
    however, because the district court properly denied Garcia’s motion to dismiss based
    on his failure to show that Dominguez’s testimony would have been material and
    favorable to the defense. See Caballero, 
    277 F.3d at 1242
    .
    To make that showing, Garcia did not have to provide a “detailed description”
    of the disputed testimony, Iribe-Perez, 
    129 F.3d at 1173
     (internal quotation marks
    omitted), but he was required to make a “plausible showing that the testimony of the
    deported witness[ ] would have been material and favorable to his defense, in ways
    not merely cumulative to the testimony of available witnesses,” United States v.
    Valenzuela-Bernal, 
    458 U.S. 858
    , 872 (1982). Evidence is material “only if there is a
    reasonable likelihood that the testimony could have affected the judgment of the trier
    of fact.” 
    Id. at 874
    ; see also Richmond v. Embry, 
    122 F.3d 866
    , 874 (10th Cir. 1997)
    (explaining that to be constitutionally material, excluded evidence must have been
    1
    This court has held in an unpublished decision that the determination of bad
    faith “‘must necessarily turn on the police’s knowledge of the exculpatory value of
    the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed.’ Negligence is not enough to
    establish bad faith.” United States v. Gonzalez-Perez, 573 F. App’x 771, 776
    (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting Arizona v. Youngblood, 
    488 U.S. 51
    , 56 (1988)). The court
    thus concluded that to constitute bad faith, “[t]here must be (1) willful conduct
    motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage over the defense or (2) a
    departure from the government’s normal deportation procedures.” Gonzalez-Perez,
    573 F. App’x at 776.
    7
    “of such an exculpatory nature that its exclusion affected the trial’s outcome”).
    There is no such likelihood here.
    First, there is no evidence about what Dominguez would have said if called to
    testify and no indication that the government prevented Garcia from interviewing
    Dominguez before he was deported or otherwise interfered with Garcia’s efforts to
    obtain favorable evidence. See Iribe-Perez, 
    129 F.3d at 1173
     (rejecting compulsory
    process and due process challenge based on deportation of witness where defendant
    had not “offered any credible reason to believe that [the deported witness] would in
    fact provide exculpatory testimony,” explaining that to show constitutional
    materiality, the defendant must show “more than the mere potential for favorable
    testimony”); see also Barajas-Chavez, 
    358 F.3d at 1268
     (concluding that defendant
    failed to show that deported witnesses’ testimony would have been exculpatory,
    noting that defense counsel “admitted at the pre-trial hearing that he had not
    interviewed the witnesses and had no direct knowledge of their potential testimony”).
    Moreover, the evidence that Garcia distributed methamphetamine was
    overwhelming. Flores and Martinez both testified that Garcia (or “Shorty”) was the
    supplier of the methamphetamine they distributed between November 2016 and the
    January 26, 2017, traffic stop. They testified in detail about his involvement in the
    conspiracy, including about his role in the January 26, 2017, transaction that led to
    their arrests, their text exchanges with him about logistics, and the photograph of
    drugs Flores texted to Garcia. Their testimony was corroborated by the evidence
    found on their and Garcia’s phones, the officers’ testimony, video footage, and the
    8
    drug dog’s alert to the area of the truck where Garcia had been sitting. In the face of
    this evidence, we think it is highly unlikely that the jury would have rendered a
    different verdict, even if Dominguez had supported Garcia’s claim that he knew
    nothing about the drugs and was traveling to Tulsa to purchase a car. Accordingly,
    the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia’s motion to dismiss
    his indictment.
    Contrary to Garcia’s contention, the jury’s question about the availability of
    additional video footage to support the witnesses’ credibility does not undermine our
    conclusion that he failed to show that Dominguez’s testimony was material. The jury
    heard evidence about the government’s failure to interview and decision to deport
    Dominguez, and its question did not ask about the availability of additional witnesses.2
    The court’s response, which Garcia did not object to, indicated that the jury had all
    the evidence it needed to reach a verdict, and the court’s instructions explained that
    the jury was to make its “decision based only on the evidence [it] saw and heard”
    during trial and that “[i]t will be up to you to decide what evidence to believe and
    how much of any witness’s testimony to accept or reject” R. Vol. I at 328, 333; see
    also id. at 335-36 (credibility instruction). We presume that the jury followed its
    instructions, and that it understood the trial judge’s response to its question. See
    2
    In his opening brief, Garcia described the question as asking about the
    availability, not the credibility, of witnesses. Aplt. Br. at 10. The printed form is
    difficult to read, but the district court interpreted it as asking about credibility, not
    availability. Either way, the jury’s question does not affect our conclusion that
    Garcia failed to establish that he was prejudiced by Dominguez’s deportation.
    9
    Weeks v. Angelone, 
    528 U.S. 225
    , 234 (2000). The jury reached a guilty verdict
    within about ten minutes after the court responded to its question, and we will not
    speculate about what the jury was thinking when it asked the question or give the
    question more significance than the record suggests it had. Cf. Allen v. Minnstar,
    Inc., 
    97 F.3d 1365
    , 1373 (10th Cir. 1996) (rejecting argument based on speculation
    about the meaning of the jury’s question and its reaction to the court’s response,
    explaining that such arguments could “be raised in any case in which a jury presents
    questions to a trial court,” and that “a verdict will not be upset on the basis of
    speculation about possible jury confusion” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    B. Reasonableness of Sentence Imposed
    Garcia also claims his 170-month sentence is manifestly unreasonable because
    the district court did not give sufficient weight to his lack of criminal and
    incarceration history and the fact that his immigration status made him ineligible for
    placement in lower-security or halfway-house facilities. Again, we disagree.
    “Substantive reasonableness involves whether the length of the sentence is
    reasonable given all the circumstances of the case in light of the factors set forth in
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).” United States v. Conlan, 
    500 F.3d 1167
    , 1169 (10th Cir.
    2007).3 We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under the deferential
    abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Gordon, 
    710 F.3d 1124
    , 1160
    3
    Reasonableness also has a procedural component: “whether the district court
    committed any error in calculating or explaining the sentence.” United States v.
    Friedman, 
    554 F.3d 1301
    , 1307 (10th Cir. 2009). However, Garcia does not
    challenge the procedural reasonableness of his sentence.
    10
    (10th Cir. 2013). A within-guidelines sentence like Garcia’s is presumptively
    reasonable, and we will “find an abuse of discretion only if the district court was
    arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable when it weighed the
    permissible § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Sanchez-Leon, 
    764 F.3d 1248
    , 1267
    (10th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
    The trial court is in a far better position than a reviewing court to make
    credibility determinations, find facts, and “judge their import under § 3553(a).” Gall
    v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus,
    we defer to the sentencing court’s factual findings as well as “its determinations of
    the weight to be afforded to such findings.” United States v. Smart, 
    518 F.3d 800
    ,
    808 (10th Cir. 2008); see also Sanchez-Leon, 764 F.3d at 1268 (explaining that the
    sentencing court “need not afford equal weight to each of the [§ 3553] factors”).
    Because the facts and law often “fairly support” a wide range of possible outcomes,
    we defer to the district court if the sentence imposed “falls within the realm of [the]
    rationally available choices.” United States v. McComb, 
    519 F.3d 1049
    , 1053
    (10th Cir. 2007). “That we might reasonably have concluded a different sentence
    was appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” United States
    v. Friedman, 
    554 F.3d 1301
    , 1307-08 (10th Cir. 2009) (alterations and internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    Here, because of the quantity of drugs involved, Garcia’s conviction carried a
    ten-year mandatory minimum. See 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), 846. The
    PSR determined that Garcia’s offense level was 34, based primarily on a drug
    11
    quantity of 1.58 kilograms of methamphetamine—the drugs seized on January 26,
    2017, and two additional quarter-pound quantities Garcia supplied to Flores on
    December 19, 2016, and January 3, 2017. The offense level was also supported by a
    two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice based on Garcia’s false testimony at
    trial. With his criminal history score of I, the PSR calculated Garcia’s guidelines
    range as 151 to 188 months’ imprisonment.
    Garcia objected to the inclusion of drug quantities from earlier transactions
    and to the obstruction of justice enhancement. He also sought a downward variance
    to 120 months, the statutory mandatory minimum, arguing that he had no criminal
    record, that he would likely be deported and was ineligible for low-security and
    community-based placements available to citizens, and that a shorter sentence would
    reduce the disparity between his and his co-defendants’ sentences.
    The court overruled both of Garcia’s objections to the calculation of his
    offense level and rejected his request for a downward variance. The court found that
    the obstruction of justice enhancement was appropriate because Garcia “committed
    perjury when he testified under oath that he did not know about the drugs in” the car
    the day of his arrest, R. Vol. III at 47. With respect to the inclusion of the additional
    drug amounts in the total drug quantity, the court noted that the evidence established
    that Flores had sent a photograph of the quarter-pound of methamphetamine he
    picked up from Garcia on December 19, 2016, and that Garcia arranged the January
    3, 2017, transaction with Flores through a text exchange that specifically referenced a
    quarter-pound of methamphetamine. The court further noted that Garcia had “cited
    12
    no examples where the testimony was conflicting, vague, or unreliable,” 
    id. at 45
    ,
    and found Martinez’s and Flores’s testimony about those and other drug transactions
    credible, 
    id. at 46
    . Finally, the court rejected Garcia’s request for a downward
    variance, explaining that it had considered “the totality of the circumstances of this
    case, including [Garcia’s] lack of acceptance of responsibility, [his] perjury, and [his]
    distribution of large quantities of methamphetamine into the community,” and had
    concluded that a downward variance was not warranted because there were “no
    factors present that separate this defendant from the mine run of similarly situated
    defendants,” 
    id. at 56
    .
    The court then adopted the proposed offense level and guidelines range and
    imposed a mid-range prison sentence of 170 months. We find no abuse of discretion
    in the district court’s rulings or in the sentence imposed. The court considered the
    relevant statutory factors, expressly acknowledging Garcia’s mitigating evidence,
    including his positive criminal history score, the effect of his immigration status on
    his placement options, and the fact that “his impending deportation will act as a form
    of punishment.” 
    Id.
     But the court concluded that a 170-month sentence was
    nevertheless justified by Garcia’s having distributed significant quantities of
    methamphetamine, his failure to accept responsibility for his role in the conspiracy,
    and his perjury at trial. The court explained that the sentence was “appropriate
    and reasonable” under the totality of Garcia’s circumstances and that it would
    “serve as an adequate deterrent to this defendant, as well as others, promote respect
    13
    for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, and provide protection for the
    public.” 
    Id. at 57
    .
    The record supports the court’s findings, and we will not reweigh the evidence
    on appeal. See Gall, 
    552 U.S. at 51-52
     (emphasizing the importance of appellate
    court deference to a district court’s sentencing determination, explaining that the trial
    judge “has access to, and greater familiarity with, the individual case and the
    individual defendant before him,” and that “[d]istrict courts have an institutional
    advantage over appellate courts in making these sorts of determinations, especially
    as they see so many more Guidelines cases than appellate courts do” (internal
    quotation marks omitted)). When considered in context and on the record presented,
    we conclude that the district court did not “exceed[ ] the bounds of permissible
    choice,” McComb, 
    519 F.3d at 1053
     (internal quotation marks omitted), in imposing
    a 170-month sentence.
    Conclusion
    The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
    Entered for the Court
    Allison H. Eid
    Circuit Judge
    14