United States v. Rodriguez ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40235 Document: 00516888514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
September 8, 2023
No. 22-40235
Lyle W. Cayce
____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jonathan Rodriguez,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:19-CR-656-1
______________________________
Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jonathan Rodriguez appeals his conviction for (1) conspiring to
possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(A); (2) possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); and (3) possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(2). The district court
departed downward and sentenced Rodriguez to a below-Guidelines
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40235 Document: 00516888514 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2023
No. 22-40235
sentence of 300 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.
ROA.793–94, 2284, 2869–70.
Rodriguez raises nineteen issues on appeal.1 Four of the issues are
directly foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States v. Romans, 823
F.3d 299, 316 (5th Cir. 2016) (foreclosing the challenge to the application of
the preponderance standard to his Guidelines range calculation); United
States v. Bolton, 908 F.3d 75, 95 (5th Cir. 2018) (foreclosing the challenge to
the district court’s consideration of acquitted conduct for sentencing
_____________________
1
Rodriguez lists the following errors in his brief:
(1) the district court erred by admitting illegally obtained evidence, (2)
holding a pretrial hearing to admit evidence prejudiced the defense, (3) the
court erred in admitting a drug buy video because it was unreliable and
missing audio, (4) the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction for
conspiracy to possess crack cocaine, possession with intent to distribute
powder cocaine and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug
trafficking crime, (5) the court excluded critical exculpatory evidence
which deprived Rodriguez of his 14th Amendment right to due process and
his 6th Amendment right to confrontation, (6) the offense of possessing a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime is unconstitutional, (7)
Rodriguez has been denied a complete record of the proceedings for his
appeal, (8) a jury instruction [that] extraneous offenses must be proven
beyond a reasonable doubt was not given, (9) the court erred by admitting,
over objection, unverifiable and misleading testimony regarding drug
distribution methods and theories, (10) the PSR’s factual narrative relied
upon improper and unreliable facts, (11) preponderance of the evidence
standard [is] unconstitutional for sentencing, (12) acquitted conduct
should not be considered at sentencing, (13) violation of [the]
Confrontation Clause during sentencing, (14) drug quantities were
improperly calculated at sentencing, (15) premises enhancement was
improper, (16) leadership enhancement was improper, (17) the mandatory
minimum sentence and suggested guidelines for crack cocaine offenses
violate equal protection clause, (18) a 300 month sentence was
unreasonable, (19) Rodriguez’s return of property request should be
granted and his objection to seizure should be sustained.
See Blue Br. 11–13.
2
Case: 22-40235 Document: 00516888514 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/08/2023
No. 22-40235
purposes); United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006)
(foreclosing the attempt to apply the Confrontation Clause to sentencing
hearings); United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1992)
(foreclosing the challenge to the sentencing disparity between powder and
crack cocaine).
The remaining fifteen issues fall into six different groups.
First, Rodriguez challenges the district court’s denial of his
suppression motion. We affirm the denial for substantially the reasons set out
by the district court in its well-reasoned suppression order. ROA.3147–66.
Second, Rodriguez raises three unpreserved challenges, which we
review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 131 (2009).
We conclude that the district court did not commit plain error when it
(1) entered judgment against Rodriguez for possessing a firearm in
furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, (2) instructed the jury that the burden
of proof for extraneous offenses is beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) allowed
testimony from a lay witness, based on his extensive knowledge and
experience, about trap houses and drug ledgers.
Third, Rodriguez argues the district court abused its discretion in
choosing to admit and exclude certain pieces of evidence. We see no abuse of
discretion as to any of the district court’s evidentiary decisions Rodriguez
highlights.
Fourth, Rodriguez argues the evidence is insufficient to support his
three counts of conviction. Rodriguez preserved his sufficiency challenges,
so we review them de novo. United States v. Moparty, 11 F.4th 280, 296 (5th
Cir. 2021). This review is “highly deferential” to the jury’s verdict, and we
will affirm if a rational jury could find that all elements of the crime were
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (citation omitted). After reviewing the
record, we find there is ample evidence to support that Rodriguez conspired
3
Case: 22-40235 Document: 00516888514 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/08/2023
No. 22-40235
to possess with intent to distribute more than 280 grams of crack cocaine,
possessed with intent to distribute the cocaine seized from the storage unit,
and possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.
Fifth, Rodriguez argues the district court committed multiple
sentencing errors. After careful review, we reject Rodriguez’s arguments and
conclude the district court committed no reversible sentencing errors.
Sixth, Rodriguez argues he is entitled to the return of his forfeited
property. We find this argument inadequately briefed on appeal and therefore
forfeited. See, e.g., Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir.
2021).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. IT IS
FURTHER ORDERED that Rodriguez’s opposed motion to supplement
the record on appeal is DENIED.
4