United States v. Mata-Rodriguez

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
October 21, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-3272
(D. Kansas)
v. (D.C. No. 2:10-CR-20024-JWL-1)
ADRIAN MATA-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
_____________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-3273
(D. Kansas)
v. (D.C. No. 2:10-CR-20024-JWL-2)
JAVIER PONCE-ACEDO,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before MURPHY, ANDERSON, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
On January 30, 2010, Adrian Mata-Rodriguez sold methamphetamine to a
police informant, John Maxwell, at a house where he and Javier Ponce-Acedo
(Defendants) resided. Four days later, officers executed a search warrant at the
house. They found methamphetamine and firearms in several places. During the
search Defendants and a third person started to drive into the house’s driveway
but then left. They were stopped a few blocks away. Defendants were arrested
and taken back to the house separately. Methamphetamine was later found in the
patrol car used to transport Mr. Mata-Rodriguez.
A jury in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas
convicted Defendants of maintaining drug-involved premises, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 856(a)(2), and of being unlawful aliens in possession of firearms, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(5). Mr. Mata-Rodriguez was also convicted of distributing five grams or
more of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii);
possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, see
id.; and unlawful reentry by a deported alien, see 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Defendants
were acquitted of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 50
grams or more of methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A)(viii), as well as possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug-
trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(I); and Mr. Ponce-Acedo was
acquitted of possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of
-2-
methamphetamine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii). Both
Defendants were sentenced to prison terms of 188 months.
On appeal Mr. Mata-Rodriguez contends that the evidence was insufficient
to sustain his convictions for maintaining drug-involved premises, possessing
methamphetamine with intent to distribute, and being an illegal alien in
possession of a firearm. Mr. Ponce-Acedo appeals his sentence on the grounds
that the district court erred in finding that he had participated in the underlying
drug offense, erred in finding that he possessed 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, and improperly departed from the sentencing-guidelines range
without explaining its reasons when it sentenced him to the statutory maximum on
the firearms charge. Also, he appeals both his convictions on the ground that the
government violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding
exculpatory evidence.
Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we consolidate the two
appeals and affirm. Mr. Mata-Rodriguez’s challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence lack merit: a house can be drug-involved premises even if drug dealing
is not its sole purpose, circumstantial evidence sufficed to show that Mr. Mata-
Rodriguez had possessed the methamphetamine found hidden in the back seat of
the patrol car that transported him, and there was sufficient evidence that he
constructively possessed a gun found in the kitchen of the house. As for
Mr. Ponce-Acedo’s sentencing challenges, the district court’s factual findings at
-3-
sentencing were not clearly erroneous, and, contrary to Mr. Ponce-Acedo’s
assertion that the court departed from the guidelines offense level, it sentenced
him in accordance with the guidelines on the firearms charge. We do not address
the merits of Mr. Ponce-Acedo’s Brady argument because he did not raise it
below.
DISCUSSION
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
“We review sufficiency of the evidence de novo.” United States v. Prince,
647 F.3d 1257, 1268 (10th Cir. 2011). In doing so, we decide whether a
reasonable jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
See id.
1. Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises
To convict under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2), the jury had to find that Mr. Mata-
Rodriguez (1) “managed and controlled the residence,” (2) as an owner, lessee,
agent, employee, occupant, or mortgagee, and (3) “knowingly and intentionally
made the residence available for use for the purpose of unlawfully storing and
distributing” illegal drugs. United States v. McCullough, 457 F.3d 1150, 1161
(10th Cir. 2006); see 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2). The house searched by police is the
drug-involved premises at issue.
-4-
Mr. Mata-Rodriguez’s sole challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on
this charge concerns the third element. Although not disputing the connections of
the house to drug dealing, he points to its innocent, “domestic” use. He contends
that the evidence could not establish the requisite purpose of the house because it
was a residence for Mr. Ponce-Acedo, his family, and Mr. Mata-Rodriguez. He
argues that even if drugs were distributed at the house, “that does not mean that
the purpose of the residence was for storing, distributing, or using
methamphetamine.” Mata-Rodriguez Br. at 13.
Mr. Ponce-Acedo’s argument misconceives the purpose requirement. It is
unnecessary that drug distribution be the sole purpose of the premises. In United
States v. Verners, 53 F.3d 291 (10th Cir. 1995), we construed the meaning of “for
the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance” in
21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). We wrote: “[T]he purpose of manufacturing cocaine need
not be the sole purpose for which the place is used,” although it “must be at least
one of the primary or principal uses to which the house is put.” Id. at 296(internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). We see no reason to
construe the meaning of the very similar language of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2)—“for
the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a
controlled substance”—any differently. Indeed, in McCullough we held that to
prove a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2), it is sufficient for the government to
-5-
show that the defendant “knowingly and intentionally made the residence
available . . . for purposes of his drug-trafficking activities.” 457 F.3d at 1161.
Because Mr. Mata-Rodriguez fails to argue that distribution of
methamphetamine was not “one of the primary or principal uses” of the house, we
need not examine the relevant evidence. But we note that Mr. Mata-Rodriguez
sold drugs out of the house four days before he was arrested; and the search of the
house uncovered one baggie of methamphetamine in a bedroom and another
baggie of methamphetamine in the basement, a container of MSM (which is used
as a cutting agent in methamphetamine distribution) in a kitchen cabinet and
smaller quantities of MSM in an attic crawl space and the basement, and various
items associated with drug trafficking (including firearms and sandwich baggies)
in the living room, kitchen, and basement.
2. Possession with Intent to Distribute
The indictment charged that on February 3, 2010 (the date of the search)
Mr. Mata-Rodriguez possessed with intent to distribute more than five grams of
methamphetamine. To prove possession with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(a), the government must prove that “(1) the defendant knowingly possessed
the illegal drugs, and (2) the defendant possessed the drugs with the specific
intent to distribute them.” United States v. Lauder, 409 F.3d 1254, 1259 (10th
Cir. 2005). Mr. Mata-Rodriguez challenges his conviction on that charge on the
-6-
ground that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed methamphetamine
on that date.
We disagree. We need not consider whether the evidence showed his
possession of the methamphetamine found in the house during the search, because
there was sufficient evidence of his possession of the 21.6 grams of
methamphetamine found in the police car in which he traveled after his arrest.
The methamphetamine was in a bag stuffed in a quarter-sized hole between the
seatbelt and the floorboard in the back seat of the patrol car. The only person
besides Mr. Mata-Rodriguez transported in the patrol car that day had been
arrested for driving with a suspended driver’s license. That arrest occurred before
Mr. Mata-Rodriguez’s arrest, and the car was thoroughly searched after transport
of that person.
To be sure, questions could be raised about whether Mr. Mata-Rodriguez
had hidden the methamphetamine in the patrol car. No drugs were found when he
was searched before officers put him in the patrol car, nor were drugs found when
the officer who transported him searched the vehicle at the end of her shift. But
the failure to find the drugs on those two occasions could be attributed to sloppy
police work. The search of Mr. Mata-Rodriguez upon his arrest was only a pat-
down search, which could easily have missed the drugs because Mr. Mata-
Rodriguez was wearing coveralls and multiple layers of clothing. And the officer
who transported Mr. Mata-Rodriguez was apparently in a hurry at the end of her
-7-
shift and limited her inspection to a glance in the back seat to see if anything
stood out. The drugs were found soon thereafter by an officer conducting an
inspection of the patrol car before the next shift. The methamphetamine had been
stuffed so deep into the back seat that officers had to remove the seat to recover
all of it. Moreover, a drug-detection dog was brought to the vehicle in which
Defendants had been traveling when they were arrested, and it alerted to the
possible presence of illegal drugs near the left rear seat where Mr. Mata-
Rodriguez had been sitting. The evidence was sufficient to support a finding by
the jury that the methamphetamine had been placed in the patrol car by Mr. Mata-
Rodriguez.
3. Possession of Firearm
Mr. Mata-Rodriguez was convicted of being an illegal alien in possession
of a firearm. He concedes that there was sufficient evidence to prove that he was
an illegal alien but argues that there was insufficient evidence to prove he
possessed either of the two firearms that officers found at the house.
Possession of a firearm may be actual or constructive. See United States v.
Jameson, 478 F.3d 1204, 1209 (10th Cir. 2007). Constructive possession of a
firearm found on premises jointly occupied by two or more persons may be
proved by showing that the defendant had access to and knowledge of the firearm.
See id. We need consider only the handgun found in the kitchen cabinet.
Because Mr. Mata-Rodriguez was living at the residence and the firearm was not
-8-
secured in, say, a locked container, he had access to it. And his knowledge can be
inferred from his drug-distribution activity and the location of the gun. Mr. Mata-
Rodriguez had sold methamphetamine at the house only four days earlier, and the
gun was found in a kitchen cabinet with a two-pound container of MSM, which
was found as an impurity in several of the methamphetamine samples obtained in
the search and investigation. Particularly in light of the expert testimony at trial
that drug dealers use firearms to protect against theft and typically keep them in
secret, accessible places near where they keep their drugs, there was sufficient
evidence for the jury to find that Mr. Mata-Rodriguez constructively possessed
the handgun.
B. Sentencing
Mr. Ponce-Acedo was convicted of maintaining drug-involved premises and
being an unlawful alien in possession of a firearm. The district court calculated
his guidelines offense level as follows: For the drug offense the court determined
the base offense level using USSG § 2D1.1, the general guideline for drug
offenses. Although USSG § 2D1.8 provides a lower offense level for the crime of
maintaining drug premises if the defendant did not otherwise participate in the
underlying drug offense, the court refused to apply that section because
Mr. Ponce-Acedo had participated in the underlying offense. The court decided
that the base offense level should be 32 because Mr. Ponce-Acedo was
accountable for more than 50 grams of methamphetamine (actual). See USSG
-9-
§ 2D1.1(c)(4). It then applied a 2-level enhancement under § 2D1.1(b)(1)
because firearms were possessed in connection with the offense. Under USSG
§ 3D1.2(c) the drug and firearms charges were grouped together because the
firearm possession was a specific offense characteristic of the drug charge. The
total offense level was therefore the offense level for the more serious offense,
see USSG § 3D1.3(a)—here, the offense level of 34 for the drug charge. Based
on this total offense level and Mr. Ponce-Acedo’s criminal-history category of II,
the guidelines sentencing range was 168 to 210 months. The court sentenced
Mr. Ponce-Acedo to concurrent terms of 188 months on the drug charge and 120
months on the firearms charge.
Mr. Ponce-Acedo challenges his sentence on three grounds: (1) that the
district court should have applied USSG § 2D1.8 because he did not participate in
the underlying drug offense, (2) that the drugs found in the patrol car should not
have been attributed to him in calculating the offense level, and (3) that the court
departed upward from the guidelines range without explanation when it imposed a
120-month sentence on the firearms charge. On a challenge to the court’s
application of the Sentencing Guidelines, we review legal questions de novo and
factual findings for clear error, “giving due deference to the district court’s
application of the guidelines to the facts.” United States v. Maestas, 642 F.3d
1315, 1319 (10th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A finding of
fact is clearly erroneous only if it is without factual support in the record or if the
-10-
appellate court, after reviewing all of the evidence, is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
“The facts necessary to calculate the guidelines sentencing range must be proved
by a preponderance of the evidence . . . .” United States v. Flonnory, 630 F.3d
1280, 1285–86 (10th Cir. 2011). We address Mr. Ponce-Acedo’s challenges in
turn.
1. Failure to Apply § 2D1.8
Mr. Ponce-Acedo argues that the district court should have reduced his
offense level by 4 under § 2D1.8 because there was insufficient evidence that he
participated “in the underlying controlled substance offense other than allowing
use of the premises.” § 2D1.8(a)(2). We disagree.
The application note for § 2D1.8(a)(2) states that it does not apply to
defendants who “possessed a dangerous weapon in connection with the offense,
. . . arranged for the use of the premises for the purpose of facilitating a drug
transaction,” or “otherwise assisted in the commission of the underlying
controlled substance offense.” Id., cmt. n.1. The defendant has the burden of
proving that he is eligible to benefit from § 2D1.8(a)(2). See United States v.
Dickerson, 195 F.3d 1183, 1189–90 (10th Cir. 1999). The district court found
that Mr. Ponce-Acedo possessed a dangerous weapon in connection with the
offense and was involved in the drug-trafficking activity more than by “just
allowing Mr. Mata-Rodriguez to use his house.” R., Vol. 2 pt. 2 at 573.
-11-
There was ample evidence to support the district court’s finding that
Mr. Ponce-Acedo construtively possessed two firearms and participated in drug
trafficking at the house. Regarding the firearms, one was in the same kitchen
cabinet as his child’s shampoo, and when he was told that a firearm had been
found in the living room, he asked, “You mean the black one?” (The firearm was
black). Id., pt. 1 at 128. This evidence, and his renting the house to live there
with his wife and child, sufficed to show the knowledge and access that establish
his constructive possession of the firearms. See Jameson, 478 F.3d at 1209.
There was also ample evidence of Mr. Ponce-Acedos’s participation in drug
dealing. Mr. Morales-Ruiz, a cooperating witness who had pleaded guilty to
conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, testified at trial that in 2007 he and
another person had brought drugs to Mr. Ponce-Acedo several times, saw him
dealing drugs many times, and had talked to him about his dealing
methamphetamine. Updating this evidence, methamphetamine and MSM were
found throughout the house in the February 2010 search. Most significant were
the 21.5 grams of methamphetamine in a men’s jacket in Mr. Ponce-Acedo’s
bedroom, and the MSM in the same kitchen cabinet as a firearm and his child’s
shampoo.
Mr. Ponce-Acedo argues that the district court should not have found that
he was involved in drug trafficking because the jury acquitted him of the same
-12-
conduct. But an acquittal does not bind the court at sentencing. See United
States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 149 (1997).
We affirm the district court’s decision not to apply § 2D1.8.
2. Quantity of Methamphetamine
Mr. Ponce-Acedo argues that the district court should not have attributed to
him the drugs found in the patrol car, and therefore erroneously determined that
the drug quantity involved in the offense was more than 50 grams. But when a
defendant participated in joint criminal activity, the drug quantity may include
“all reasonably foreseeable quantities of contraband that were within the scope of
the criminal activity that he jointly undertook.” Lauder, 409 F.3d. at 1267(internal quotation marks omitted). The drugs found in the patrol car were
properly attributed to Mr. Ponce-Acedo.
We have already explained that it was reasonable to infer that the drugs
found in the patrol car had been in Mr. Mata-Rodriguez’s possession when he was
arrested. And immediately before that arrest Mr. Ponce-Acedo had driven him to
the driveway of their house. In light of the other evidence of Defendants& joint
participation in drug dealing, it would be surprising if Mr. Ponce-Acedo was not
fully aware of Mr. Mata-Rodriguez&s possession of the drugs and his purpose to
distribute them. Mr. Mata-Rodriguez’s possession of the drugs should certainly
have been reasonably foreseeable to Mr. Ponce-Acedo. The district court&s
finding on drug quantity was not clearly erroneous.
-13-
3. Firearms Sentence
Mr. Ponce-Acedo argues that the district court departed upward from the
guidelines sentencing range without explaining its reasons when it sentenced him
to 120 months&imprisonment on the firearms charge. He contends that his base
offense level for the firearms conviction is set at 14 by USSG § 2K2.1(a)(6) and
that his criminal-history category of II would lead to a guidelines sentencing
range of 18 to 24 months, well below his 120-month sentence. But when a
defendant is convicted on several charges, the guidelines ranges for the offenses
are not calculated independently. Once the total punishment is determined under
the guidelines, the guidelines sentence on each count should, if possible, be that
punishment. See USSG § 5G1.2(b); United States v. Johnston, 146 F.3d 785, 795
(10th Cir. 1998). Thus, after the district court determined that Mr. Ponce-Acedo&s
sentence should be 188 months& imprisonment (which was within the guidelines
range), the sentence on each count should have been, insofar as possible, 188
months. The reason Mr. Ponce-Acedo&s sentence on the firearms charge was less
than that was because 120 months (10 years) was the maximum permissible
sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). See Johnston, 146 F.3d at 795. The
court&s sentence was not a departure from the guidelines; rather, it follows the
guidelines advice. We reject the challenge to Mr. Ponce-Acedo&s sentence.
C. Brady Violation
-14-
Mr. Ponce-Acedo alleges that the government failed to turn over
exculpatory evidence, thereby violating the requirements of Brady, 373 U.S. 83.
He claims that two events led him to believe that the government withheld
evidence concerning Mr. Maxwell’s credibility: (1) at trial the government failed
to question Mr. Maxwell about Mr. Ponce-Acedo&s sale to him of a handgun,
although he had told police about the transaction; and (2) during sentencing the
government abandoned its claim that drugs found at Mr. Maxwell’s house should
be attributed to Mr. Ponce-Acedo and admitted that Mr. Maxwell had credibility
issues. We do not address the merits of this claim, however, because Mr. Ponce-
Acedo is raising it for the first time on appeal.
“If a newly raised legal theory is entitled to appellate review at all—if it
wasn’t waived before the district court—it may form a basis for reversal only if
the appellant can satisfy the elements of the plain error standard of review.”
Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1130 (10th Cir. 2011). Further,
“the failure to argue for plain error and its application on appeal . . . surely marks
the end of the road for an argument for reversal not first presented to the district
court.” Id. at 1131. Mr. Ponce-Acedo does not argue that the alleged Brady
violation was plain error, so we hold that the argument is waived.
In any event, Mr. Ponce-Acedo could not prevail even if he had argued
plain error. “[P]lain error review is not appropriate when the alleged error
involves the resolution of factual disputes.” United States v. Hamilton, 587 F.3d
-15-
1199, 1216 n.9 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he fact-
dependent nature of [the] claims would prevent us from reaching a conclusion that
any error by the district court satisfied the plain error standard.” Id. at 1217 n.9.
Mr. Ponce-Acedo’s claim that the government withheld evidence that Mr.
Maxwell was lying is precisely the sort of alleged error that we cannot resolve on
appeal as being “plain” or even error. Because Mr. Ponce-Acedo failed to present
this issue to the district court, he “effectively prevented the court from making
factual findings that would be germane to the disposition” of his Brady argument.
Id.CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Harris L Hartz
Circuit Judge
-16-