United States v. Morales , 301 F. App'x 293 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-4151
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANDRES MORALES,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States.
    (S. Ct. No. 07-8902)
    Submitted:    October 28, 2008              Decided:   December 1, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Barron M. Helgoe, VICTOR VICTOR & HELGOE LLP, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellant.      Charles T. Miller, United States
    Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    On     November      13,    2007,     this     court          affirmed    Andres
    Morales’s        conviction       and       sentence.         See        United     States      v.
    Morales, 253 F. App’x 287 (4th Cir. 2007) (No. 07-4151).                                        On
    June 9, 2008, the Supreme Court granted Morales’s petition for a
    writ of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment and remanded
    to this court for further consideration in light of Gall v.
    United      States,      
    128 S. Ct. 586
        (2007).        Having        reconsidered
    Morales’s sentence in light of Gall and this court’s decisions
    interpreting Gall, we find no reversible error.                                Accordingly, we
    affirm.
    Andres Morales was convicted by a jury of one count of
    conspiracy        to    distribute         methamphetamine,         in        violation    of   
    21 U.S.C. § 846
        (2000).         The    Presentence         Investigation          Report
    recommended an offense level of forty-two, which included a drug
    weight of between 9.92917 and 11.430 kilograms (net weight) as
    well as enhancements for possession of a firearm, aggravated
    role   in       the    offense,      and    obstruction       of    justice.         See     U.S.
    Sentencing        Guidelines         Manual    (“USSG”)      §§    2D1.1(a)(3),           (b)(1),
    (c)(2);     3B1.1(c);       3C1.1      (2006).         Morales          was    assessed    three
    criminal        history        points,      placing     him        in     criminal        history
    category II.            The resulting advisory Guidelines range was 360
    months to life imprisonment.                        See USSG Ch. 5, Pt. A (2006)
    (sentencing table).
    2
    While    Morales     agreed       with   the    probation    officer’s
    calculations, he objected generally to the basis upon which they
    were found.        The district court, however, overruled Morales’s
    objections    to     the   drug   weight       and    enhancements     based    on   a
    finding    that    they    were   supported      by    a    preponderance      of   the
    evidence.      After discussing the relevant 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    (2006)    factors,     the   court    sentenced        Morales   to    360   months’
    imprisonment.
    On appeal, Morales first contends that the district
    court erred in admitting expert witness testimony.                        We review
    the admission of expert testimony for an abuse of discretion.
    Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 
    526 U.S. 137
    , 152 (1999).                        Before
    permitting expert testimony, the district court must determine
    that the testimony is both reliable and relevant and will assist
    the trier of fact in understanding or determining a fact in
    issue in the case.           See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
    
    509 U.S. 579
    , 592-93 (1993).
    Prior to his qualification as an expert witness, Minh
    Dang testified that: he was employed for approximately ten years
    as a forensic chemist with the Drug Enforcement Administration
    (“DEA”);     he      received     a   Bachelor        of     Science     degree      in
    biochemistry from California Polytechnic University and a Master
    of Science degree in chemical toxicology from George Washington
    University; he completed a nine month training course for the
    3
    analysis      of    controlled         substances,          including       methamphetamine,
    and     a    course      on       investigating        clandestine           methamphetamine
    laboratories; during his term of employment with the DEA, he has
    chemically analyzed substances to determine whether they contain
    a    controlled      substance,         including       between       700     and    800    tests
    specifically        involving          methamphetamine;         and     he    has    testified
    approximately thirty times in prior criminal cases.
    Dang’s       testimony,         which     was    subjected        to    vigorous
    cross-examination,             included       the     tests    used     as     well    as    the
    protocols         performed       to    assure       accuracy.         His     inability      to
    respond to some of the detailed questions proffered on cross-
    examination is relevant to the weight of Dang’s testimony rather
    than to its admissibility.                    See United States v. Moreland, 
    437 F.3d 424
    , 431 (4th Cir. 2006).                       Thus, we conclude the district
    court       did    not     abuse        its    discretion        by     admitting          Dang’s
    testimony.
    Morales      next        contends      that    several     of    the     district
    court’s rulings on evidentiary issues were improper.                                 We review
    a district court’s decision regarding the admission or exclusion
    of     evidence      for      abuse      of    discretion.            United        States     v.
    Lancaster, 
    96 F.3d 734
    , 744 (4th Cir. 1996).                           Such discretion is
    abused      only    when      a   district     court     has    acted        “arbitrarily     or
    irrationally.”           United States v. Moore, 
    27 F.3d 969
    , 974 (4th
    Cir.    1994)      (internal        quotation        marks     and    citation        omitted).
    4
    However,      evidentiary           rulings          based        on      erroneous        legal
    conclusions are “by definition an abuse of discretion.”                                  United
    States v. Turner, 
    198 F.3d 425
    , 430 (4th Cir. 1999).
    The     evidence          presented         at     trial    established         that
    Morales supplied methamphetamine to several distributors in the
    southern     portion       of     West     Virginia.              On     one     occasion,     a
    cooperating witness aided investigators by placing a monitored
    call    to   Morales’s          cell    phone       in     an    effort     to    schedule     a
    controlled buy.           The buy was ultimately scheduled, and a date
    and location were appointed.                   Dannie Fraley, a co-conspirator,
    arrived      at    the     chosen       location         in      Morales’s        girlfriend’s
    vehicle.           Two    packages        of        what        was     determined      to     be
    methamphetamine          were    retrieved          by   officers       from     the   vehicle.
    Fraley testified that he was sent by Morales to execute the
    deal.
    Morales       argues       that    the        district       court    erred     by:
    (1) excluding        testimony          regarding          Fraley’s       niece’s      alleged
    methamphetamine addiction; (2) admitting testimony from Fraley’s
    girlfriend regarding whether Fraley would hide his drug use from
    her; (3) admitting a photograph of the interior of Morales’s
    girlfriend’s vehicle in which a child’s car seat was visible;
    and (4) admitting testimony regarding Morales’s personal life.
    He further argues that the district court erred in denying his
    post-trial motion for a new trial in light of the cumulative
    5
    effect of these errors.                   When viewed in the context of the
    trial, the district court’s rulings were neither arbitrary nor
    irrational.       Moreover, even if the rulings were erroneous, such
    error would nevertheless be harmless in light of the evidence
    adduced at trial to establish Morales’s guilt.
    Finally,        Morales      contends    that    the     imposition      of   a
    sentence within the calculated Guidelines range is unreasonable.
    When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate
    the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider it in
    conjunction with the factors set forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a).
    Gall, 
    128 S. Ct. at 596
    .                Appellate review of a district court’s
    imposition       of    a    sentence,      “whether   inside,       just     outside,      or
    significantly outside the Guidelines range,” is for abuse of
    discretion.           
    Id. at 591
    .      Sentences       within    the    applicable
    Guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be
    reasonable.           United States v. Pauley, 
    511 F.3d 468
    , 473 (4th
    Cir. 2007).
    The district court followed the necessary procedural
    steps   in       sentencing         Morales,       appropriately           treating     the
    Sentencing       Guidelines        as     advisory,   properly        calculating       and
    considering the applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the
    relevant     §    3553(a)         factors.        Furthermore,        we    may   presume
    Morales’s sentence, which is at the low end of the applicable
    6
    Guidelines          range    and      below      the      statutory          maximum,       to       be
    reasonable.
    To     the    extent       Morales         continues         to    maintain       his
    innocence       and     argue      that      his       objections      to        the    sentencing
    enhancements         should     have      been         sustained,      the       district    court
    properly       found    each       sentencing          factor    to    be    supported          by    a
    preponderance of the evidence.                     See United States v. Morris, 
    429 F.3d 65
    ,     72    (4th     Cir.    2005).            Morales’s      challenge          to    the
    testimony      presented        at    sentencing          is    likewise         unavailing,         as
    witness credibility is the sole province of the factfinder and
    will     not    be     reassessed       on    appeal.            See    United          States       v.
    Saunders, 
    886 F.2d 56
    , 60 (4th Cir. 1989).                              Thus, we conclude
    that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
    the chosen sentence.
    Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
    court.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions         are     adequately          presented      in        the    materials
    before    the       court    and     argument          would    not    aid       the    decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    7