United States v. Juan Cadenas-Urena ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 19-40322      Document: 00515378517            Page: 1        Date Filed: 04/10/2020
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    No. 19-40322
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    Summary Calendar                             April 10, 2020
    Lyle W. Cayce
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                                          Clerk
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    JUAN LEONARDO CADENAS-URENA,
    Defendant - Appellant
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:18-CR-49-1
    Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Juan    Cadenas-Urena        was       convicted     of   conspiracy            to      possess
    methamphetamine with the intent to distribute. Following a two-day trial, the
    jury concluded that he was responsible for 500 grams or more of a mixture
    containing     methamphetamine           or     50   grams          or     more         of       actual
    methamphetamine. At sentencing, Cadenas-Urena received a two-level
    * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
    CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 19-40322     Document: 00515378517     Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/10/2020
    No. 19-40322
    enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) because the district court found
    that he maintained a premises for the purpose of maintaining or distributing
    a controlled substance.
    I.
    Cadenas-Urena raises two arguments on appeal. First, he argues that
    there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. Although we review
    this argument de novo, our review is “highly deferential to the verdict.” United
    States v. Cannon, 
    750 F.3d 492
    , 506 (5th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). “[T]he
    relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most
    favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
    essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.
    Oti, 
    872 F.3d 678
    , 686 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 
    443 U.S. 307
    , 319 (1979)).
    Cadenas-Urena asserts that, at worst, the record establishes a buyer–
    seller relationship, not a conspiracy. But there is evidence that Cadenas-Urena
    coordinated with at least two other individuals to deliver methamphetamine.
    The buyer, Jesse Martinez, agreed to buy drugs from a supplier, a man known
    as “Chino.” Cadenas-Urena spoke with Martinez on multiple occasions and
    personally delivered the specified amount of methamphetamine that Martinez
    ordered from Chino. Cadenas-Urena’s conversations with Martinez focused on
    delivery logistics, not the terms of sale, and he could not change the location of
    the delivery without approval from Chino. A fourth individual—with whom
    Cadenas-Urena shared a house to access and store methamphetamine—drove
    Cadenas-Urena to the delivery point. Accordingly, the jury had sufficient
    evidence to conclude that there was a drug conspiracy. See United States v.
    Suarez, 
    879 F.3d 626
    , 631 (5th Cir. 2018) (requiring “(1) an agreement between
    two or more persons to violate narcotics laws; (2) knowledge of the agreement;
    and (3) voluntar[y] participation in the agreement”); see also United States v.
    2
    Case: 19-40322     Document: 00515378517       Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/10/2020
    No. 19-40322
    Mendoza, 
    226 F.3d 340
    , 343 (5th Cir. 2000) (“The elements of the conspiracy
    may be established by circumstantial evidence and ‘may be inferred from the
    development and collocation of circumstances.’” (citation omitted)).
    II.
    Cadenas-Urena also argues that the district court erred by applying a
    sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12) because he did not
    maintain a premises for the purpose of maintaining or distributing a controlled
    substance.   “[T]he   district   court’s    determination    that   [a   sentencing]
    enhancement applies is a factual finding reviewed for clear error. ‘A factual
    finding is not clearly erroneous if it is plausible, considering the record as a
    whole.’” United States v. Romans, 
    823 F.3d 299
    , 317 (5th Cir. 2016) (citations
    omitted). Instead, “[a] finding is clearly erroneous if, on the entire evidence, we
    are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
    United States v. Marquez, 
    685 F.3d 501
    , 508 (5th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
    marks and citation omitted).
    Cadenas-Urena contends that this enhancement was inapplicable
    primarily because he did not have “any ownership or leasehold interest in the
    premises” or keys to the house. The record shows, however, that Cadenas-
    Urena was seen leaving the house alone and returning, and the police observed
    that he was “living” in the house along with the individual who drove him to
    the drug sale. The house also contained documents suggesting that Cadenas-
    Urena lived there.
    From this set of facts, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly
    erred, because it was plausible to conclude that Cadenas-Urena exercised
    sufficient dominion and control over a premises used to distribute controlled
    3
    Case: 19-40322      Document: 00515378517        Page: 4    Date Filed: 04/10/2020
    No. 19-40322
    substances. 1 See, e.g., United States v. Guzman-Reyes, 
    853 F.3d 260
    , 264 (5th
    Cir. 2017) (“[T]he evidence should support ‘that the defendant exercised
    “sufficient dominion and control” over’ the premises” (citation omitted)); United
    States v. Chagoya, 510 F. App’x 327, 328 (5th Cir. 2013) (noting that one factor
    is “the extent to which the defendant controlled access to, or activities at, the
    premises”). Even if Cadenas-Urena did not have an ownership or leasehold
    interest, “it would defy reason for a drug dealer to be able to evade application
    of the enhancement by the simple expedient of maintaining his stash house
    under someone else’s name.” 
    Guzman-Reyes, 853 F.3d at 265
    (quoting United
    States v. Jones, 
    778 F.3d 375
    , 385 (1st Cir. 2015)). Additionally, Cadenas-
    Urena offers no evidence that has “left [us] with a definite and firm conviction
    that a mistake has been committed.” 
    Marquez, 685 F.3d at 508
    .
    III.
    The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    1 Nor was it clear error to find that Cadenas-Urena used the premises to manufacture
    or distribute methamphetamine. The house was “sparsely furnished,” contained 3.25
    kilograms of methamphetamine, smelled like methamphetamine, and contained equipment
    used to facilitate the sale of methamphetamine. Before Cadenas-Urena delivered the
    methamphetamine in question, he was near the house according to his cell-phone-location
    data, and the delivery car was parked near the house and registered to Cardenas-Urena’s
    alias. Moreover, Cadenas-Urena was in the house on the date of his arrest.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-40322

Filed Date: 4/10/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/10/2020