United States v. Snell ( 2021 )

Case: 19-40852 Document: 00515695076 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/05/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-40852 January 5, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
David Earl Snell, Jr.,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:16-CR-85-2
Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-Appellant David Earl Snell, Jr., was convicted by a jury of
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A) (Count One);
conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of §§
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40852 Document: 00515695076 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/05/2021
No. 19-40852
846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) (Count Two); and conspiracy to possess with
the intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of §§ 846, 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(C) (Count Three). He was sentenced to concurrent sentences of
151 months of imprisonment as to each count and concurrent five-year terms
of supervised release. Snell argues on appeal that his conviction as to Count
One should be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to prove that
he knew or should have reasonably known that the conspiracy involved a
quantity of methamphetamine in excess of the § 841(b)(1)(A) threshold.
Because he moved for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the
Government’s case and rested without introducing any evidence, Snell has
properly preserved his sufficiency claim for appellate review. See United
States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910 n.6 (5th Cir. 1995). When considering
the sufficiency of the evidence, this court evaluates all evidence, “whether
circumstantial or direct, in the light most favorable to the [g]overnment[,]
with all reasonable inferences to be made in support of the jury’s verdict.”
United States v. Terrell, 700 F.3d 755, 760 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). We will uphold the verdict if “any rational trier
of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299, 301 (5th
Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
Testimony at trial established that Snell purchased approximately
1440 grams of methamphetamine from coconspirators for redistribution
during the timeframe charged in the indictment. The criminal history of
these witnesses and possible motives for testifying were brought out at trial.
The jury’s verdict, however, demonstrates that it found the witnesses to be
credible. Snell has failed to demonstrate that the testimony was “incredible
as a matter of law.” United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1552 (5th Cir.
1994). Thus, we will not disturb the jury’s findings. See United States v.
Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d 600, 605 (5th Cir. 2008). When the evidence is
2
Case: 19-40852 Document: 00515695076 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/05/2021
No. 19-40852
viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, it sufficiently
establishes that Snell knew or should have known that the conspiracy
involved the requisite amount of methamphetamine. See United States v.
Haines, 803 F.3d 713, 739-41 (5th Cir. 2015); Terrell, 700 F.3d at 760. Snell’s
related challenge to the jury instructions, which he did not raise in the district
court, is unpersuasive. See United States v. Fairley, 880 F.3d 198, 208 (5th
Cir. 2018).
Snell also challenges the district court’s drug quantity calculation at
sentencing. He contends that the district court erred by attributing to him
the entire amount of methamphetamine involved in the conspiracy, rather
than making an individualized finding. This court reviews the district court’s
determination of the drug quantity for clear error and will affirm the finding
so long as it is “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” United States v.
Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
The district court’s drug quantity determination was based on
officers’ interviews with Snell’s coconspirators, confidential informants, and
trial testimony that detailed transactions Snell conducted during the course
of the conspiracy. Thus, the information upon which the district court based
its drug-quantity findings had sufficient indicia of reliability. See United
States v. Valdez, 453 F.3d 252, 267 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Alford,
142 F.3d 825, 832 (5th Cir. 1998). Because Snell failed to offer any rebuttal
evidence as to those facts, which were contained in the presentence report,
he fails to show clear error on the part of the district court in adopting its
findings. See United States v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012).
AFFIRMED.
3