United States v. Vaziri

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
JAN 6 1999
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TENTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. Nos. 97-8117, 98-8010
& 98-8026
JESSE ALLEN VAZIRI, COREY
JESS ADKINS, and JACQUELINE
LOU QUARTERMAN,
Defendants - Appellants.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING
(D.C. NO. 97-CR-024-D)
Gerald M. Gallivan, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Michael H. Reese, Wiederspahn,
Liepas & Reese, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, joining with him on the briefs), for
Appellant Vaziri.
Michael H. Reese, Wiederspahn, Liepas & Reese, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, for
Appellant Adkins.
Thomas B. Jubin, Cheyenne, Wyoming (Michael H. Reese, Wiederspahn, Liepas
& Reese, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming, joining with him on the briefs), for
Appellant Quarterman.
Patrick J. Crank, Assistant United States Attorney (David D. Freudenthal, United
States Attorney, and David A. Kubichek, Assistant United States Attorney, with
him on the brief), Casper, Wyoming, for Appellee.
Before PORFILIO , ANDERSON , and CAMPBELL , * Circuit Judges.
ANDERSON , Circuit Judge.
Jesse Vaziri, Corey Adkins, and Jacqueline Quarterman were convicted in a
joint trial in the district court of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, as well as various possession and distribution
charges, violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). They separately appeal their
convictions and sentences. Due to the interrelated factual and legal premises of
their appeals, we combine the cases for purposes of disposition. 1
Appellants challenge the fairness of their trial, arguing that perjured
testimony went to the jury uncorrected and that witnesses illegally testified in
exchange for promises of leniency from the government. Appellants also contest
their conspiracy convictions specifically, arguing that there was insufficient
evidence to support the jury’s verdicts, that general verdicts on a multiple-object
*
The Honorable Tena Campbell, District Judge, United States District Court
for the District of Utah, sitting by designation.
1
In general, where only one or two appellants raise an issue, we will so
specify. We note that Adkins has filed a motion to adopt the briefs of the other
two appellants. We grant this motion. When we discuss arguments specifically
raised only by Quarterman and/or Vaziri but relevant to Adkins’ appeal, it is to be
understood that we are also treating these issues as being raised by Adkins.
-2-
conspiracy charge were improperly rendered, and that the jury was improperly
instructed. Finally, each appellant raises sentencing issues: Quarterman and
Adkins challenge obstruction of justice enhancements; Quarterman, Adkins, and
Vaziri contest enhancements for weapons possession; and Adkins attacks the
quantity of drugs attributed to him.
For the reasons discussed below, we affirm appellants’ convictions and
sentences.
I. BACKGROUND
Jacqueline Lou Quarterman and two of her sons, Corey Jess Adkins and
Jesse Allen Vaziri, lived in Wyarno, Wyoming, during early 1997. Wyarno, near
Sheridan, Wyoming on a two-lane highway, consisted of a bar/post office,
Quarterman’s log house, and several trailers. Quarterman owned the entire town.
On March 15, 1997, Quarterman, Adkins, and Vaziri were arrested for drug
offenses, and on May 15, 1997, they were named in a five-count superseding
indictment. Count One charged all three with conspiracy to distribute controlled
substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Count Two charged Quarterman and
Vaziri with distribution of LSD and aiding and abetting under 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count Three charged Quarterman and Adkins with
possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting
-3-
under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count Four charged Vaziri with
distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Count
Five is not involved in this appeal.
At a joint trial held August 19-September 2, 1997 in the district court, a
jury convicted each defendant as charged in Counts One through Four. The
government presented extensive evidence, only some of which is detailed here.
Mark Addington served as an informant during the government’s
investigation. He testified at trial that he was arrested on January 7, 1997, for
marijuana possession, and the next day he agreed to cooperate with the Wyoming
Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) in exchange for a recommendation of a
reduced charge. At that time, Addington began placing telephone calls to
Quarterman as part of an undercover operation.
Addington testified that he participated in a series of controlled drug buys
during which he wore a recording device. (At trial, prosecutors introduced
recordings made with the device.) On January 23, 1997, he called Quarterman to
arrange a drug buy, then went to her residence. In her bedroom he was introduced
to Vaziri and a woman named Kelly. Kelly and Vaziri left the bedroom.
Addington then purchased, from Quarterman, a gram of cocaine for $100 and six
hits of LSD for $6 apiece. As Quarterman handled the LSD, Addington was
-4-
recorded saying, “[L]ook like you got quite a bit there.” R. Vol. 15, Test. of
Addington at 55.
According to Addington, on January 30, 1997, he called Quarterman and
arranged to meet her that same day at a set location in Sheridan to purchase drugs.
In Sheridan, Vaziri and Quarterman were waiting for him. Quarterman got into
Addington’s car. Addington purchased 100 hits of LSD from her for $500.
Addington placed additional phone calls to Quarterman on March 7, March
10, and March 12, 1997. In these phone calls he arranged for another drug
transaction, and asked if he could bring along his “friend” from Red Lodge,
Montana, “John Pettimore” (DCI Special Agent Chris Peters). On March 12 he
and Agent Peters traveled to Wyarno, where Agent Peters bought one-half ounce
of methamphetamine from Quarterman. Agent Peters testified at trial that during
this transaction, Quarterman told Agent Peters that the methamphetamine had
come from California. Peters asked who had gone to get it, and according to
Peters, Quarterman replied, “My sons.” R. Vol. 18, Trial Transcript [hereinafter
Tr.] at 538. Peters asked if she could get him an entire ounce of
methamphetamine. Quarterman told Peters she didn’t know if she wanted to sell
an ounce, but that she’d “see if Corey would.” R. Vol. 18, Tr. at 541.
The government introduced a recording of a March 13, 1997 phone call
from Addington to Quarterman. Wyoming DCI Agent Louey Williams monitored
-5-
the telephone call when it was made, prepared a transcript of the call, and
testified at trial that the transcript was accurate. 2
According to that transcript, the
following exchange took place after Addington asked Quarterman if Adkins
would be willing to sell an entire ounce of methamphetamine:
[Quarterman]: I uh, I kinda doubt whether he, just a second let
me . . . (Talking to someone in her home: Jessie,
Jessie? Do you have any idea um, how much
Corey has left? [Jesse Vaziri]?: No, I don’t.
Quarterman: He wouldn’t want to sell a whole
ounce would he? [Vaziri]: No.) I was just asking
my other son if he . . .
[Addington]: Uh huh. Probably not then?
[Quarterman]: Probably not. Uh, I wasn’t sure. I, I haven’t even
talked to him since he got back.
Tr. of Phone Call, Appellee’s Add. at 36. Addington testified that he recognized
the voice in the background as that of Jesse Vaziri.
On the evening of March 13, 1997, Peters and Addington returned to
Wyarno to make additional purchases. Peters testified that Quarterman was not
2
This transcript was conditionally admitted as evidence, but the jury
listened to this particular recording without the aid of the transcript, because the
prosecution withdrew the transcript when defense counsel lodged objections. The
transcript and not the tape itself was included in the record on appeal. We may
properly refer to the transcript as an aid to our decision. Cf. United States v.
Watson, 594 F.2d 1330, 1336 (10th Cir. 1979) (approving jurors’ limited use of
transcripts not admitted as evidence). Because appellants do not contest the
contents of this conversation as a factual matter, and given the limited issues
raised in this appeal, we need not make any conclusive determination as to the
accuracy of the transcript; we treat it only as a permissible interpretation.
-6-
home, but Vaziri was. Vaziri sold Peters two grams of methamphetamine. Vaziri
told Peters that this methamphetamine had been “fronted” to Vaziri by another
person, and that therefore he would have to have $200 for it in order to pay his
debt. 3 Vaziri also told Agent Peters that he had supplied the LSD that
Quarterman sold to Addington on January 30, 1997, and that he had an LSD
source in Denver, Colorado. R. Vol. 18, Tr. at 554-55.
On March 14, 1997, Peters and Addington again traveled to Wyarno to
meet Quarterman. At trial tape recordings were played and Peters testified to
explain the conversations. He testified that at first Quarterman sold him only
one-quarter ounce of methamphetamine. He asked Quarterman whether she had
any more, and she said no but offered to see if Adkins had any. Peters told her to
see if she could get him an ounce. She said Adkins might be willing to sell an
ounce to get rid of it, because while he was in California, there had been rumors
that he was going to get busted. Peters testified that Quarterman then left the
house; when she returned she told Peters that Adkins would not sell an entire
ounce. She said that Adkins preferred to sell by the gram because he had been
cheated in California and had to make up the difference. Peters told her that he
wanted four more grams. Quarterman then sold him two more grams herself, and
3
Apparently Vaziri obtained this quantity from persons outside his family.
Later laboratory analysis confirmed that this methamphetamine sold by Vaziri
likely came from a different source than that sold by Quarterman.
-7-
sent a person named Bart to tell Adkins, who lived in a trailer behind
Quarterman’s house, that she needed two additional grams. Bart left, then
returned and related that Adkins was bringing methamphetamine to the house.
Adkins came to the house and he and Quarterman went into her bedroom. When
Quarterman emerged from the bedroom she handed Peters two more grams of
methamphetamine. Agent Peters asked Quarterman if $60 per gram was an
acceptable price. Quarterman turned to Adkins and asked if $60 was all right;
Adkins replied, “[I]t’s your deal now.” R. Vol. 18, Tr. at 603. Peters eventually
paid Quarterman $180 for the two grams. Peters and Addington then left.
According to Peters’ testimony, during this visit Quarterman asked Peters
which he had liked better, the methamphetamine she had sold him or the
methamphetamine Vaziri had sold him. She also discussed Adkins’ recent trip to
California, stating that Adkins had bought a total of about five ounces. 4
She said
Adkins had given her half of those amounts. She told Peters that she didn’t sell
in ounce quantities because she could get in more trouble that way.
Addington testified that at his home on the night of March 14, 1997, at
11:00 PM his wife answered the phone and the caller immediately hung up. At
about 11:45 PM he answered another telephone call. The caller stated, “Pig,
4
According to Peters, she stated that Adkins had first obtained four ounces
and tried to get a fifth ounce, but that Adkins had been cheated, so this last
“ounce” was actually not a full ounce.
-8-
you’re f------ the wrong people. You’re going to pay, bitch,” and then hung up.
R. Vol. 23, Tr. at 1510; see also R. Vol. 15, Test. of Addington at 80-81; R. Vol.
28, Adkins Sent. Tr. at 27. Addington called Agent Williams to report the phone
call. Williams testified that Addington could not at that time positively identify
the caller, but that Addington told him he thought it might have been Adkins.
Williams told Addington to report any other calls.
Addington testified that at about 2:00 AM on March 15, 1997, he received
a phone call from Quarterman. Quarterman asked where “John” (Agent Peters)
had been staying. Addington replied that he was staying at the Mill Inn (the
motel in Sheridan where Peters in fact was staying). Quarterman told Addington
that Adkins had obtained telephone records from the Mill Inn showing calls to the
DCI, the sheriff’s office, Cheyenne, and Addington’s residence. She asked him
whether he knew if “John” was an undercover agent. Addington said no.
Addington heard Adkins in the background say, “[A]sk him if he’s a f------ narc.”
R. Vol. 15, Test. of Addington at 93. Addington reported this call to Agent
Williams. Williams testified that after the call from Quarterman with Adkins in
the background, Addington was able to identify the 11:45 PM caller more
positively as Adkins.
On March 15, 1997, Quarterman, Adkins, and Vaziri were arrested, and
each gave statements to police. Agent Williams testified that Quarterman was
-9-
arrested at her residence. He testified that she admitted to having the money
Agent Peters used to buy drugs from her, and that she corroborated her earlier
statement to Agent Peters that the methamphetamine she sold him had come from
the quantities Adkins had recently brought back from California. According to
Williams, she admitted to the January 23, 1997 and January 30, 1997 sales of
cocaine and LSD to Addington. She also admitted transporting and reselling
methamphetamine she obtained in Bakersfield, California: one-half ounce in
October 1996, one ounce sometime between October 1996 and February 1997,
and one ounce around Presidents’ Day 1997. On this last trip, she traveled with a
friend to Las Vegas, then went on to Bakersfield. Corroborating this testimony by
Williams, the government presented evidence of two wire money transfers to
Quarterman: one for $948 on February 21, 1997, received in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and another for $898 on February 23, 1997, received in Bakersfield, California.
Williams testified that telephone records from Quarterman’s bar showed
numerous calls to Bakersfield during these time periods. He also testified that
Quarterman admitted to having the Mill Inn records.
Agent Williams testified that Adkins was arrested while driving a blue van,
with his girlfriend Candace Kinnaird riding in the passenger seat. Wyoming DCI
Agent Mike Burnett testified that Adkins admitted that two weeks earlier he had
traveled to Bakersfield with Kinnaird and another couple, and that he had
-10-
purchased the blue van to get home when their car broke down. According to
Burnett, Adkins denied all involvement in drug activity, and specifically denied
having transported drugs from California. Adkins instead explained that he had
heard of another person (whom he refused to name) from Story, Wyoming, who,
during this same time period, had brought methamphetamine and marijuana from
Humboldt, California, for distribution in the Sheridan area. Burnett testified that
Adkins acknowledged having obtained the Mill Inn records to find out if an
undercover officer was working in Sheridan, and said he had done so to protect
people he knew. A triple-beam scale was seized from Adkins’ trailer; later
testing showed Adkins’ fingerprints on the scale, as well as traces of marijuana,
methamphetamine, and cocaine.
Wyoming DCI Officer Michael Wenz testified that after Vaziri was
arrested, he admitted to transporting one ounce of methamphetamine from
Bakersfield in the spring of 1996, and to reselling it in quantities ranging from
one-quarter gram to one gram. Vaziri admitted to another such trip four months
later when he and a cousin obtained two ounces of methamphetamine for resale.
Vaziri also stated that on January 23, 1997, he purchased 250 hits of LSD in
Denver, Colorado, of which he resold 126 hits and used 4 hits. He acknowledged
selling two grams of methamphetamine to Agent Peters on March 13, 1997.
-11-
Richard Wiberg testified under immunity that he and his girlfriend had
purchased methamphetamine from Quarterman, Adkins, and Vaziri numerous
times during the fall of 1996. He testified that each charged roughly the same
price. He testified that in November 1996 he believed he had been shorted by
them, and in retaliation sold Quarterman and Vaziri a fake sheet of LSD for $150.
After this incident Adkins came to Wiberg’s residence and threatened him that he
would have “[t]o pay the money back or watch [his] back because [he] would be
taken care of if [he] didn’t pay back the money.” R. Vol. 22, Tr. at 1402.
At sentencing hearings, Agent Williams testified that on March 15, 1997,
during the execution of a search warrant, he found a 9mm semiautomatic rifle and
a .22 semiautomatic rifle in Quarterman’s residence. Adkins’ fingerprints were
found on the .22 and on .22 ammunition recovered from his trailer. Williams
further testified that Quarterman told him that the .22 rifle belonged to her nine-
year-old son Hunter. She said the 9mm rifle belonged to Adkins. Williams
testified that Vaziri, who was living with Quarterman at the time of his arrest,
told Agent Wenz that both guns belonged to Adkins, and that two to four weeks
prior to their arrest Adkins had given the guns to Vaziri because Adkins was a
convicted felon. There was also evidence that the 9mm gun was on Quarterman’s
dining room table on March 14, 1997; that during Agent Peters’ visit that day,
-12-
Agent Peters asked about buying it; and that Quarterman told him he would have
to talk to Adkins about that.
Each defendant was sentenced separately. Quarterman received 108
months imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently; Adkins received
a total of 200 months; Vaziri received concurrent sentences of 78 months for each
count.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Presentation of Allegedly Perjured Testimony
All three appellants contend that perjured testimony was presented at trial
and that this perjury went to the jury uncorrected, due to errors by the prosecutor
and/or the court. A conviction obtained by the introduction of perjured testimony
violates due process if (1) the prosecution knowingly solicited the perjured
testimony or (2) the prosecution failed to correct testimony it knew was perjured.
Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264, 269 (1959). “A new trial is required if the false
testimony could in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgment of the
jury.” Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) (quoting Napue , 360
U.S. at 271) (internal quotes and alterations omitted).
In appellants’ briefs on appeal, only Quarterman has identified precisely
what testimony was allegedly perjured–the testimony of Mark Addington
-13-
regarding his relationship with Quarterman, which was relevant to Quarterman’s
entrapment defense. 5
Addington first testified on direct examination that he had
never bought drugs from her before the undercover operation, and that he knew
she sold drugs because he had met her in a bar in December 1996 after he had
smoked some marijuana she had sold to his friend. On cross-examination by
counsel for Vaziri, Addington testified that he had met Quarterman once prior to
December 1996, through a mutual friend named “Donna.” He described it as “just
a kind of hi and bye thing” in a bar. R. Vol. 15, Test. of Addington at 108. Next
he admitted that he had heard that Quarterman had a crush on him. On cross-
examination by counsel for Adkins, Addington admitted having conversed with
Quarterman at a house party. Then, on cross-examination by counsel for
Quarterman, Addington admitted that one-and-a-half to two years prior to the
undercover operation, he had invited Quarterman to a party at his home, had
kissed her, went to bed with her to have sex, and woke up in bed with her. On
redirect, Addington testified as follows:
Q: Did you have sex with her, Mr. Addington?
5
It became clear at oral argument that Adkins’ and Vaziri’s arguments
regarding the alleged perjury are essentially the same as Quarterman’s, and
therefore we will allow all three the benefit of Quarterman’s specificity.
Adkins and Vaziri refer to allegedly perjured testimony by Jeff Burfiend as
well. Neither, however, appears to make any attempt to identify precisely what
false statements Burfiend made, and therefore we cannot review this claim.
-14-
A: No, I did not.
Q: Then how did she wake up in your apartment the next
morning?
A: I woke up. I had passed out. She was in bed with me. I
believe we went back to have sex and I passed out.
R. Vol. 15, Test. of Addington at 202. Counsel for Vaziri and Adkins then
conducted recross-examination. Later, when Addington had finished testifying
and the jury had been excused, the court told Addington it doubted the
truthfulness of some of his testimony, mentioned the possibility of perjury
charges, and warned Addington not to say another word.
At the end of trial, the prosecuting attorney and counsel for Quarterman
both emphasized Addington’s relationship with Quarterman and the fact that he
may have lied about it. The prosecutor specifically pointed out that Addington
had misrepresented the nature of his relationship with Quarterman, and told the
jurors, “if you think someone knowingly lied to you, folks, in this courtroom, you
can completely disregard their testimony if you want to. . . . Or you can give it
such weight and credence as you think it deserves.” R. Vol. 24, Tr. at 1935. He
continued by arguing that Addington’s sexual relationship with Quarterman had
“nothing to do with entrapment.” R. Vol. 24, Tr. at 1936. Counsel for
Quarterman also highlighted Addington’s relationship with Quarterman, arguing
that Quarterman had been entrapped.
-15-
Over objections by the prosecution, the court gave an instruction on
entrapment. See R. Vol. 24, Tr. at 1816; R. Vol. 25, Tr. at 2031-32. The court
also gave the following instruction:
If a person is shown to have knowingly testified falsely
concerning any important or material matter, you obviously have a
right to distrust the testimony of such an individual concerning other
matters. You may reject all of the testimony of that witness or give it
such weight or credibility as you may think it deserves.
R. Vol. 25, Tr. at 2011.
Appellants argue that Addington gave perjured testimony that went to the
jury uncorrected. We disagree. Inconsistencies in Addington’s testimony were
exposed on cross-examination, emphasized on redirect, and brought out again in
closing arguments. Although Addington appears to have remained reluctant
throughout his testimony regarding the relationship, it is plain from the record
that the jury was apprised of the possibility that Addington had had a sexual
relationship with Quarterman and had lied to them about it.
Quarterman points to the court’s statements to Addington as evidence that
Addington’s allegedly perjured testimony went to the jury uncorrected. On
August 21, 1997, Addington had finished testifying and the jury had been
dismissed for the day, when the court, citing an “obligation” to ensure the
truthfulness of testimony, expressed doubts about some of Addington’s
statements:
-16-
During the course of your testimony here, you’ve said in
response to a question by defense counsel that you acknowledge that
you had heard that Jackie Quarterman had a crush on you; and while
I don’t have the testimony verbatim, it is my recollection that you left
the jury with the impression that your relationship was a relationship
of one drug user to another and that you had no other special hold on
this defendant.
Well, I don’t think it is an entirely truthful statement to say
that you heard from people that she had a crush on you. That may be
the case, of course, but I would think that finding that defendant in
your bed would be a good hint.
R. Vol. 16, Tr. at 455. The court then admonished Addington not to say another
word because he risked prosecution for perjury.
Taking these remarks in context, we read the court’s statements as
indicating only that Addington’s initial statements about his relationship with
Quarterman left the jury with a false impression, not that the jury ultimately was
unaware of the nature of the relationship. The court is referring to blatant
inconsistencies of which–by that point, when Addington had admitted waking up
in bed with Quarterman–the jury must have been well aware. Furthermore, the
judge made this statement long before closing arguments, where the prosecution
as well as defense counsel made additional efforts to highlight inconsistencies in
Addington’s testimony. The jury could not possibly have been left with the
impression that Addington’s relationship with Quarterman was simply that of one
drug user to another.
-17-
Quarterman also argues that the court’s admonition to Addington prevented
the correction of his perjury. It is true that when, after a witness has finished
testifying, the prosecution discovers that its witness has perjured himself, “then in
the interests of justice they should be allowed to reopen direct and present
truthful testimony.” Tapia v. Tansy , 926 F.2d 1554, 1563 n.15 (10th Cir. 1991).
Here, reopening direct was not necessary, because (as we have just explained)
cross-examination and redirect had already exposed the alleged perjury.
We conclude that the jury was properly apprised of the possibility of false
testimony, and that at that point it was for the jury to settle any related questions
of credibility.
B. United States v. Singleton
Appellants argue that various witnesses testified at trial pursuant to offers
of favorable treatment by the government, in violation of the rule of United States
v. Singleton , 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir.), vacated & reh’g en banc granted , 144
F.3d 1361 (10th Cir. 1998). Defense counsel did not raise the Singleton issue at
trial. Reviewing only for clear error, we conclude that the district court was not
required to raise the issue on its own motion in anticipation of Singleton .
-18-
C. Conspiracy Issues
Each appellant raises various issues regarding the sufficiency of evidence
and the propriety of jury instructions regarding Count One of the indictment, the
conspiracy charge.
1. Insufficiency of the Evidence and Variance
Adkins and Vaziri contend that there was insufficient evidence to convict
them of any conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. In addition,
Quarterman and Vaziri argue that there was a prejudicial variance between Count
One of the indictment and the evidence of conspiracy presented at trial. These
latter claims regarding variance are also essentially arguments about the
sufficiency of evidence: they argue that the evidence was insufficient to show the
single unitary conspiracy charged in the indictment. See United States v. Daily ,
921 F.2d 994, 1007 (10th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by United States
v. Gaudin , 515 U.S. 506 (1995) ( overruling recognized in United States v. Wiles ,
102 F.3d 1043, 1054 (10th Cir. 1996) (en banc)).
In addressing these claims challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we
review the record de novo, viewing the circumstantial and direct evidence along
with the reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the
government, to determine whether a reasonable jury could find Quarterman,
-19-
Adkins, and Vaziri guilty of a single conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. See
United States v. Voss , 82 F.3d 1521, 1524-25 (10th Cir. 1996); Daily , 921 F.2d at
1007. Conspiracy requires proof of (1) an agreement with another person to break
the law; (2) knowledge of the essential objectives of the conspiracy; (3) knowing
and voluntary involvement in the conspiracy; and (4) interdependence among the
alleged conspirators. United States v. Lopez , 100 F.3d 113, 118 (10th Cir. 1996).
“Generally, it is sufficient for purposes of a single-conspiracy finding that a
conspirator knowingly participated with a core conspirator in achieving a common
objective with knowledge of the larger venture.” Daily , 921 F.2d at 1008.
Quarterman contends that “[t]he evidence, at best, points toward three users
and sometime retailers, often acting independently, but occasionally co-operating
with one other defendant for the duration of a particular transaction or joint
venture.” Quarterman Br. at 17. Adkins argues that although he may have been
present during illegal transactions, “[a]t best, the evidence merely reveals that
Corey Adkins was a buyer/user.” Adkins Br. at 14. Vaziri argues that he
distributed drugs independent of his mother and brother, and that to the extent he
may have been involved in their dealings, such involvement was merely
incidental.
We think that the jury was justified in concluding otherwise. In the first
place, there was considerable evidence of conspiratorial agreement and
-20-
cooperation between Quarterman and Adkins. Quarterman told Agent Peters that
Adkins had gone to California to get the methamphetamine she sold to Peters, and
estimated that Adkins had obtained a total of five ounces. Quarterman repeatedly
answered Agent Peters’ queries about obtaining an entire ounce by raising the
possibility that Adkins would sell such a quantity. She eventually told Peters that
Adkins would sell only grams. Then, circumstantial evidence supports, and
indeed appears to compel, the conclusion that Adkins supplied two grams of
methamphetamine to Quarterman for resale on March 14, 1997. Quarterman and
Adkins also cooperated in their use of the Mill Inn records to expose the
undercover operation.
While it would be possible to conclude from the record that Vaziri did
some independent drug dealing and that he was involved in the conspiracy to a
lesser degree than Adkins and Quarterman, there was sufficient evidence for the
jury to conclude that Vaziri did concur in and promote the conspiracy’s illegal
objectives. Wiberg’s testimony tends to show that Quarterman, Adkins, and
Vaziri were involved in a joint operation to sell drugs and that they protected each
others’ interests. And during Addington’s March 13, 1997 phone call to
Quarterman where Vaziri is heard in the background, even though Vaziri
apparently told Quarterman that he didn’t know how much methamphetamine
Adkins had, the fact that Quarterman asked Vaziri this question permits an
-21-
inference that Quarterman, Adkins, and Vaziri shared information and cooperated
in making drugs available. In addition, Vaziri supplied the LSD that Quarterman
sold Addington, and Vaziri was present with Quarterman at the site of the
transaction. This tends to show that Vaziri “knowingly participated with a core
conspirator in achieving a common objective with knowledge of the larger
venture.” Daily , 921 F.2d at 1008.
In sum, while it is possible to credit appellants’ arguments that their drug-
selling activities were only loosely integrated, those arguments do not save them
where each was aware of and complicit in the larger venture. The evidence was
sufficient to show that Quarterman, Adkins, and Vaziri knowingly agreed to
cooperate in the distribution of illegal substances.
2. Failure to Give a Multiple-Conspiracy Charge
Vaziri and Quarterman contend that the district court erred in not giving a
multiple-conspiracy instruction to the jury. No one requested such an instruction
at trial, and therefore we must determine only if the court committed plain error in
not giving such an instruction sua sponte. See United States v. Jamieson , 806
F.2d 949, 953 (10th Cir. 1986). There was no such error here; the relevant
instructions given by the district court, see R. Vol. 25, Tr. at 2014, 2018-19,
tracked the instructions approved in United States v. Evans , 970 F.2d 663, 675
-22-
(10th Cir. 1992), and adequately conveyed the government’s burden of proof, see
id.
3. Multiple-Object-Conspiracy Issues
Appellants point out that the jury returned general verdicts on Count One of
the indictment, which charged a multiple-object conspiracy involving (1) LSD, (2)
methamphetamine, (3) cocaine, and (4) marijuana, listed in the conjunctive.
Appellants argue that because the government did not prove each of the four
objects alleged in the indictment, various errors infected the jury’s deliberations
and verdicts.
First, appellants allege error in the court’s instruction to the jury regarding
a multiple-object conspiracy. Over objections by defense counsel, the court
instructed the jury “that when an offense is charged in the conjunctive, the
offense may be proven in the disjunctive.” R. Vol. 25, Tr. at 2020. The court
continued:
Thus, in order for you to find the defendants guilty of Count
One of the superseding indictment, you must find beyond a
reasonable doubt that at least one of these four purposes were objects
of such conspiracy, but you need not find that all of these purposes
were objects of such conspiracy. You must, however, unanimously
agree on which object or objects of the conspiracy the defendants
agreed to violate.
R. Vol. 25, Tr. at 2021.
-23-
Appellants argue that both Count One of the indictment and this instruction
erroneously aggregated four separate crimes, and that this instruction
impermissibly allowed the jury to convict them on theories for which there was
not sufficient evidence. These arguments are precluded by Griffin v. United
States , 502 U.S. 46 (1991), which upheld a general verdict based on a similar
instruction and indictment. The appellant in Griffin was charged with a
conspiracy involving two objects, and the district court instructed the jury that it
needed to find proof of only one object in order to convict. The Court upheld a
general verdict rendered after this instruction, stating that the failure to give an
instruction eliminating the unsupported ground was not reversible error. Id. at
56-57, 60. We think the case before us is indistinguishable. See also United
States v. Bell , 154 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 1998).
Appellants next argue, without citing legal authority, that the district court
erred in refusing to require the jury to arrive at special verdicts, one for each of
the four illegal substances in the indictment. Appellants contend further, again
without legal support, that the court improperly denied motions for acquittal as to
the LSD, cocaine, and marijuana portions of the indictment. Based on our reading
of Griffin , we do not think the district court was required to treat each substance
separately in ruling on motions for acquittal or in submitting verdict forms to the
-24-
jury. In Griffin the Court appeared to endorse similar practices, but refused to
require them:
Indeed, if the evidence is insufficient to support an alternative legal
theory of liability, it would generally be preferable for the court to
give an instruction removing that theory from the jury’s
consideration. The refusal to do so, however, does not provide an
independent basis for reversing an otherwise valid conviction.
Griffin , 502 U.S. at 60.
D. Sentencing Issues
1. Obstruction of Justice Enhancement
Adkins and Quarterman contend that their sentences were improperly
enhanced for obstruction of justice based on evidence of the phone calls to
Addington during the night of March 14-15, 1997. The Sentencing Guidelines
provide the following:
If the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to
obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the
investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense,
increase the offense level by 2 levels.
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3C1.1 (1995). 6
In our review of obstruction
of justice enhancements, “[w]e give due deference to the district court’s
6
The November 1, 1995 Guidelines Manual was used in these cases. See
Quarterman Presentence Report at 12, ¶ 12; Adkins Presentence Report at 10, ¶ 8;
Vaziri Presentence Report at 11, ¶ 14.
-25-
application of the Guidelines to the facts and its ability to judge the credibility of
the witnesses upon whose testimony it relied.” United States v. Hankins , 127
F.3d 932, 934 (10th Cir. 1997).
Adkins argues only that the testimony of Addington on which the court
relied was hearsay testimony that did not possess sufficient reliability. The
Sentencing Guidelines provide that courts “may consider relevant information
without regard to its admissibility under the rules of evidence applicable at trial,
provided that the information has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its
probable accuracy.” USSG § 6A1.3(a) (1995); see United States v. Padilla , 947
F.2d 893, 896 (10th Cir. 1991).
Although as to some matters Addington was evidently not the most credible
of witnesses, his testimony regarding the phone calls was substantially
corroborated. Quarterman admitted that she made the 2:00 AM phone call, and
that she and Adkins had the Mill Inn records at her residence, where they were
recovered by law enforcement. Addington’s identification of the 11:45 PM caller
as Adkins was not directly corroborated. However, the fact that Addington told
Agent Williams about the 11:45 call and first tentatively identified Adkins’ voice
before the 2:00 AM call adds credibility to Addington’s more confident
identification of Adkins after 2:00 AM. The district court was entitled to credit
this testimony.
-26-
Quarterman argues that she did not threaten Addington, rather that she
called him because she was “worried,” “sleepless,” and “distraught” over the
betrayal of a former lover, hoping that Addington had “an explanation for her
fears and concerns.” Quarterman Br. at 26. However, the district court found
otherwise. It stated:
I don’t think law-abiding citizens call folks at two o’clock in the
morning to ask “what’s up.” For me to accept the defendant’s
position that that was simply a casual call to find out whether or not
she was under investigation stretches credulity.
....
Based upon my recollection of the evidence, that phone call
was made by this defendant and her co-conspirators in the early
morning hours of March 15th for one purpose: To affect the outcome
of this case and attempt to obstruct justice.
R. Vol. 32, Quarterman Sent. Tr. at 80-81. Based on the circumstances
surrounding the call, including its timing and content, we find ample support for
the court’s finding that Quarterman’s call to Addington was a threat, and uphold
the resulting enhancement of her sentence.
2. Weapons Possession Enhancement
Appellants each contend that their sentences were improperly enhanced for
possession of firearms based on evidence regarding the .22 rifle and the 9mm
rifle. Quarterman contends that the rifles were not connected with the conspiracy,
-27-
and that even if they were, she had no knowledge of such a connection. She
claims that at most the evidence shows she was storing the guns for her sons: the
9mm because Adkins was a convicted felon, and the .22 because her 9-year-old
son Hunter was too young. Adkins argues that the 9mm gun belonged to a friend,
and that neither the .22 rifle nor the 9mm rifle were connected with the
conspiracy. Vaziri makes similar claims.
The Sentencing Guidelines provide for an offense level enhancement of two
points “[i]f a dangerous weapon (including a firearm) was possessed” during a
drug conspiracy. USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) (1995). We review factual findings under
USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1) for clear error; we give due deference to the application of
the Guidelines to the facts; we review purely legal questions de novo. United
States v. Underwood , 982 F.2d 426, 428 (10th Cir. 1992).
We stated the appropriate legal standard in United States v. Smith , 131 F.3d
1392, 1400 (10th Cir. 1997):
“The [enhancement for weapon possession] should be applied if the
weapon was present, unless it is clearly improbable that the weapon
was connected with the offense.” USSG § 2D1.1, comment., (n.3).
The government bears the initial burden of proving possession by a
preponderance of the evidence, and possession may be satisfied by
showing mere proximity to the offense. See United States v.
Roberts , 980 F.2d 645, 647 (10th Cir. 1992). The enhancement is
then appropriate unless the defendant proves the exception–that it is
clearly improbable the weapon was connected with the offense. See
id.-28-
The government meets its initial burden when it shows that a weapon was located
near the general location where at least part of a drug transaction occurred. See
United States v. Flores , 149 F.3d 1272, 1280 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v.
Roederer , 11 F.3d 973, 982-83 (10th Cir. 1993). Here, both guns were recovered
on March 15, 1997, from Quarterman and Vaziri’s residence, where all three
appellants had completed drug transactions in the previous two days. In addition,
Agent Peters saw the 9mm rifle on Quarterman’s dining room table during his
March 14 visit to Quarterman’s residence, where he completed a drug transaction
involving Adkins and Quarterman.
The burden therefore falls on appellants to show that it is “clearly
improbable” that either gun was “connected with” the conspiracy. Although
Vaziri and Quarterman presented convincing evidence that neither ever used or
owned guns, that does not establish a lack of connection with the conspiracy. See
Smith , 131 F.3d at 1400. There was also evidence that Vaziri and/or Quarterman
were merely storing the guns for other persons. Even if credited, this evidence is
not enough to meet the “clearly improbable” standard, because no one established
that coconspirator Adkins had not likely used the guns in connection with the
conspiracy. Therefore we uphold the weapons possession enhancements.
3. Drug Quantity Calculations
-29-
Adkins argues that the district court’s drug quantity calculation improperly
included amounts which were attributable only to coconspirators. We review a
district court’s drug quantity calculation for clear error. See United States v.
Roberts , 14 F.3d 502, 519 (10th Cir. 1993). Because Adkins was convicted of
conspiracy, his sentence is based not only on drug amounts with which he
personally dealt, but also any amounts “which he reasonably foresaw or which fell
within the scope of his particular agreement with the conspirators.” United States
v. Ivy , 83 F.3d 1266, 1289 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotes and citations
omitted); see USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B); United States v. Melton , 131 F.3d 1400,
1403 (10th Cir. 1997).
The district court based Adkins’ sentence on a total of 108 grams of
methamphetamine. See R. Vol. 28, Adkins Sent. Tr. at 107. This included an
estimated 80 grams 7
from Adkins’ March 1997 trip to California, and another 28
grams from Quarterman’s February 1997 trip. See R. Vol. 28, Adkins Sent. Tr. at
91-93, 107. The evidence showed that Adkins personally handled the 80 grams,
and we do not understand him to contest that amount. The 28-gram quantity was
properly attributed to him based on the fact that the evidence considered at
7
There was evidence that Adkins had obtained almost five ounces on this
trip, but the government made a more conservative estimate of 80 grams based on
Quarterman’s admission that Adkins gave her between 40 and 42 grams, an
amount she described as half Adkins’ total from the March 1997 trip. See R. Vol.
28, Adkins Sent. Tr. at 92.
-30-
sentencing showed that he had sent the February 23, 1997 wire transfer of $898 to
Quarterman in Bakersfield, California. This wire transfer permitted an inference
of conspiratorial agreement as to the one ounce of methamphetamine Quarterman
purchased on that trip. There was no clear error on this record.
Based on the foregoing considerations, we AFFIRM appellants’ convictions
and sentences.
-31-