United States v. Robert Richards , 363 F. App'x 729 ( 2010 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITU.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FEB 02, 2010
No. 09-13179 JOHN LEY
Non-Argument Calendar ACTING CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00412-CR-18-CAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROBERT RICHARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(February 2, 2010)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Richards appeals his convictions for conspiracy to launder money,
18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and laundering money, id. §§ 2, 1956(a)(2)(A). Richards
challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Richards and 21 other individuals were charged in an eleven count
indictment for money laundering and drug crimes. Richards was indicted for three
crimes: conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 5 kilograms of
cocaine between April 2007 and December 6, 2007, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), 846; conspiracy to launder money, id. § 841, 846; 18 U.S.C. §
1956(h); and laundering money, id. §§ 2, 1956(a)(2)(A); 21 U.S.C. § 841, 846.
Richards entered a blind plea of guilty to conspiring to distribute cocaine, and he
waived his right to a trial by jury for the money laundering charges.
Before trial, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts. Richards admitted
that between August 2007 and December 2007 he had worked as a truck driver for
Troy Palmer, the owner of Palmer Trucking. Richards also admitted that he had
transported cocaine and money that “consist[ed] of drug proceeds and a fee for
transporting the cocaine.” Richards knew that Palmer had transported the cocaine
for Ramiro Campuzano-Velasco, the “leader of the Atlanta cell of a drug
trafficking organization,” and the cocaine was supplied by “Ramon Madrigal-
Moreno in Mexico.” Although “Richards did not have any direct contact with”
2
Madrigal, Richards knew that Palmer talked to Madrigal “through a cell phone, to
which a Mexican telephone number was assigned.”
Richards admitted that he had transported cocaine to Atlanta, Georgia, on
three occasions. During the first trip, Richards obtained 60 kilograms of cocaine
from an “unknown Hispanic male in Colton, southern California,” delivered it to
an “Hispanic male in a Wal-Mart parking lot” in Atlanta, Georgia, and received
$48,000 from “another Hispanic male” to transport to California. During the
second trip, Richards obtained 60 kilograms of cocaine “once again from an
unknown Hispanic male(s) in Colton, California,” delivered the cocaine to
Rigoberto Sanchez . . . in a Costco parking lot” in Atlanta, and received two
deliveries of $50,000 and $351,050. En route to California, federal agents stopped
Richards and seized the $351,050, but the agents did not arrest Richards. Richards
obtained a receipt for the money that he delivered to “unknown Hispanic males in
southern California.” During the third trip, Richards obtained 120 kilograms of
cocaine “from Hispanic males in the Dallas, Texas area,” delivered the cocaine to
Sanchez in Atlanta, and Sanchez gave Richards money to transport to California.
At trial, Palmer testified that he had transported drugs to Atlanta and drug
proceeds to Sacramento and Los Angeles and he deduced that the proceeds were
destined for Mexico. Palmer explained that Chuey superintended how the
3
proceeds were handled and, during one conversation, Chuey pressured Palmer to
rush his delivery so Chuey could travel to Tijuana, Mexico. Palmer stated that the
drug proceeds seized from Richards’s truck were supposed to be delivered to
Mexico, but Palmer did not discuss the final destination with Richards. Palmer
testified that Madrigal was upset that “the money was taken.”
After the government rested, Richards argued that the government failed to
prove he laundered or conspired to launder money. Richards argued that the
district court had to assume he knew the money was delivered to Mexico based on
circumstantial evidence that the proceeds were delivered to Hispanic men, the
cocaine came from Mexico, and the dropoff points were near the Mexican border.
Richards also argued that he did not know about or join a conspiracy to deliver
money to Mexico.
The district court found Richards guilty of conspiracy to launder money and
of laundering money. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(2)(A), (h). The district court found
the circumstantial evidence proved that the proceeds were destined for Mexico.
The court ruled that Richards did not have to know the final destination of the
proceeds either to aid and abet in laundering money or to conspire to launder. The
district court sentenced Richards to 240 months of imprisonment for his drug
crime, a concurrent term of 121 months of imprisonment for his money laundering
4
crimes, and ten years of supervised release.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo the denial of a judgment of acquittal. United States v.
Browne, 505 F.3d 1229, 1253 (11th Cir. 2007). In a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to, and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of, the government. Id. An argument not presented
to the district court is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Hunerlach,
197 F.3d 1059, 1068 (11th Cir. 1999).
III. DISCUSSION
Richards argues there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for
conspiracy to launder and laundering money. Richards argues there is no evidence
he knew either that the drug proceeds were destined for Mexico or the objective of
the conspiracy was to launder money. Richards also argues for the first time on
appeal that his actions did not promote trafficking in cocaine. These arguments
fail.
Ample evidence supports Richards’s convictions. Richards joined the
conspiracy at Palmer’s invitation and he knowingly transported proceeds of
cocaine sales in a manner intended to avoid the detection of law enforcement. See
18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h); United States v. Quintero, 165 F.3d 831, 838 (11th Cir.
5
1999). Richards promoted trafficking in cocaine by transporting the drug
proceeds, which, in turn, aided and abetted his coconspirators in delivering the
money to Mexico. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1956(a)(2)(A). Richards did not have to
know the ultimate destination of the money. Based on evidence that Richards
knew the cocaine was imported from Mexico and he accepted the money from
Hispanic men, it was nevertheless foreseeable that the money would be delivered
to Mexico. See United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311, 1335 (11th Cir. 2005).
The district court did not err by denying Richards’s motion for a judgment of
acquittal.
IV. CONCLUSION
Richards’s convictions for conspiring to launder and laundering cocaine are
AFFIRMED.
6