United States v. Maria Nava

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2914
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Maria De La Cruz Nava, also known as Maria De La Cruz-Nava
Defendant - Appellant
___________________________
No. 22-2966
___________________________
United States of America
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
Juan Guzman, also known as Juan Villarreal-Guzman, also known as Juan
Guzman-Villareal, also known as Victor Nava, also known as Francisco Lara, also
known as Francisco Lara-Paramo, also known as Ayala Ramoro, also known as
Carlos Solorio, also known as Daniel Solorio, also known as Flaco
Defendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: April 12, 2023
Filed: September 6, 2023
____________
Before SMITH, Chief Judge, MELLOY and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________
ERICKSON, Circuit Judge.
Maria De La Cruz Nava and Juan Guzman were convicted of conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and
846; conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), (B)(i), (ii), and (h); and possession of firearms in furtherance of
a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Guzman was
also convicted of illegal re-entry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(1), and 6
U.S.C §§ 202(3), 202(4), and 557. De La Cruz Nava challenges the sufficiency of
the evidence against her, and Guzman contends the district court abused its
discretion when it refused to allow witnesses who are Mexican nationals to testify
by Zoom and admitted evidence of an unrelated assault with a firearm. We affirm
in part and reverse in part the district court’s denial of De La Cruz Nava’s motion
for judgment of acquittal and vacate her conviction for conspiracy to commit money
laundering. We reverse the district court’s denial of De La Cruz Nava’s motion for
a new trial on the drug trafficking and firearms counts and remand for proceedings
consistent with this opinion. We affirm with respect to Guzman.
I. BACKGROUND
When law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at a residence in
Kansas City, Missouri, Guzman, De La Cruz Nava, and another person were found
locked and hiding in the master bedroom. De La Cruz Nava was around a corner of
the room closest to the connecting bathroom, Guzman was under the bed, and a third
person was hiding behind a dresser. Other persons were present in the kitchen as
-2-
well as outside the house, which was dirty, held few furnishings, and contained
contraband.
During the search, officers found a box in the living room containing two
rifles, a handgun, a rifle magazine, and a high-capacity pistol magazine. A small
quantity of methamphetamine was laying on the sofa. In the kitchen, officers found
a purse containing a gun, a drug ledger, a pouch of ammunition, and plastic baggies.
Officers recovered a bowl containing methamphetamine and digital scales in a
kitchen cabinet. In the master bedroom, law enforcement seized a handgun, a bag
with methamphetamine, and a round of ammunition. On a nightstand, officers
observed a glass pipe. A separate baggie of methamphetamine or cocaine was also
found in the room. Officers seized $313 in cash that was located on the floor as well
as $688 in a purse. A bag containing methamphetamine was recovered from the
toilet bowl in a connecting bathroom. More ammunition and drugs were found
elsewhere in the house. In total, police seized 719.9 grams of methamphetamine.
De La Cruz Nava, who claimed to be on the premises as a cleaning person,
spoke with law enforcement and told them she lived at a residence belonging to
Guzman. When the officer mentioned that drugs and guns were all over the house,
De La Cruz Nava responded, “They all used drugs.”
Among others, Guzman and De La Cruz Nava were charged with conspiracy
to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and
possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court
entered a scheduling order that required any defendant intending to raise an alibi
defense to serve notice on the government on or before February 7, 2019. Guzman
never gave notice of an alibi defense until October 24, 2021, explaining he had
learned within the prior week that cooperating witnesses would claim one or more
of them had bought methamphetamine from him in late 2016 and early 2017.
Guzman asserted alibi witnesses would confirm that he was in Mexico during all of
2016 and left in May of 2017. Guzman sought permission to present the witnesses
-3-
using Zoom because of COVID-related travel restrictions from Mexico to the United
States and other travel-related concerns. The district court denied his motion.
Aside from law enforcement testimony, the government called nine
cooperating witnesses (“CWs”) to testify. CW1 testified that Guzman sold or
fronted him methamphetamine for use and sale beginning in November 2016. By
the time of the search, CW1 owed Guzman about $100,000. CW1 testified that he
only saw De La Cruz Nava on the day they were arrested and “once or twice, a few
times” before at a different house that Guzman used to deal drugs. CW2 testified
that she was a drug dealer who had met Guzman twice. On one occasion, she, CW1,
and Guzman went into a bedroom to smoke methamphetamine. De La Cruz Nava
stayed in the living room where a television displayed real-time security camera
footage. CW3 testified that Guzman paid him to store small quantities of
methamphetamine. CW4 testified that he bought methamphetamine from Guzman
at least weekly between April or May 2018 until CW4’s arrest in August 2018.
CW5 testified that he sold methamphetamine after Guzman sold it to him and
CW4. CW6 testified that he initially sold methamphetamine for a person connected
to Guzman but later purchased methamphetamine directly from Guzman. CW7
admitted to repeatedly purchasing a pound of methamphetamine from someone he
believed worked for Guzman and eventually repeatedly bought methamphetamine
from Guzman. CW7 spent the profits from his dealing by purchasing $250,000
worth of cars.
CW8 testified that, soon after meeting Guzman in 2011, she began buying
methamphetamine from him, using some and selling the rest. After Guzman was
deported in 2012, he contacted CW8 to help him get back into the United States by
selling drugs. After Guzman returned to the United States CW8 once again bought
drugs from him. CW8 further testified that she introduced CW9 to Guzman and that
CW9 traded guns to Guzman in exchange for methamphetamine. When CW8 was
asked if she had ever seen Guzman with a firearm, she stated that he had guns the
entire time she knew him and volunteered that one time he pointed a gun at her head.
-4-
The court overruled a subsequent objection and denied a motion to strike. Lastly,
CW9 testified that Guzman had fronted him three pounds of methamphetamine.
At the close of evidence, the district court denied De La Cruz Nava’s motion
for acquittal. After the verdict, De La Cruz Nava unsuccessfully renewed her motion
for acquittal. De La Cruz Nava’s and Guzman’s motions for a new trial were also
denied. With regard to De La Cruz Nava’s motions, the court recounted seven
details that it identified as supporting the convictions: (1) when law enforcement
encountered De La Cruz Nava, she was barricaded in a bedroom with Guzman; (2)
in the attached bathroom officers recovered methamphetamine, which appeared to
have been unsuccessfully flushed down the toilet; (3) a knife was recovered from a
“purse” on the counter with De La Cruz Nava being the only female arrested in the
residence; (4) methamphetamine was found on the counter next to the purse; (5) drug
paraphernalia was scattered throughout the house; (6) the expert testimony admitted
as to the varying roles of individuals involved in a drug conspiracy; and (7) the
testimony from two witnesses who had seen De La Cruz Nava at the residence on
other occasions, including in the living room where the security system cameras
displayed on a television screen. Without any further analysis, the court denied De
La Cruz Nava’s Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal as well as her Rule 33
motion for a new trial because “sufficient evidence” was presented such that there
was not a miscarriage of justice.
Guzman was sentenced to a total term of 320 months’ imprisonment on the
three counts and ordered to pay a $954,000 forfeiture. De La Cruz Nava was
sentenced to a total term of 180 months’ imprisonment on the three counts and to
pay a $15,000 forfeiture. At sentencing, the court acknowledged De La Cruz Nava’s
argument regarding her culpability being different from Guzman’s and the “harsh”
sentence it was imposing. The court stated that it was leaving the issue of sufficiency
of the evidence to the appellate court to determine whether the jury, “based upon all
the evidence and the way this matter was charged, made the right decision.”
-5-
II. DISCUSSION
1. Sufficiency of the Evidence for De La Cruz Nava’s Convictions
We review a claim of insufficiency of the evidence de novo while viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict. United States v. Gross, 23 F.4th
1048, 1052 (8th Cir. 2022). A reversal is appropriate only where no reasonable jury
could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. We uphold a
jury verdict if there is at least one theory supported by the evidence that could allow
a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United
States v. Hamilton, 929 F.3d 943, 945 (8th Cir. 2019). This is true even if the
conviction rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. Id.De La Cruz Nava argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her
convictions because it only establishes that she was present at the same location
where co-defendants were arrested and where drugs, guns, and money were found.
She contends the evidence failed to establish her knowledge of the conspiracy and
instead demonstrated she was at various places at the direction of Guzman to assist
with cleaning, cooking, and childcare. She argues no contraband was seized from
her person and no witness testified that she possessed or distributed drugs, or that
she handled or was aware of the seized guns or ammunition.
The government counters that the evidence is sufficient for a jury to conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that De La Cruz Nava was a participant in the conspiracy
because drugs and guns were found throughout the house, she was found locked in
a bedroom with persons who were hiding, she was closest to the toilet where
someone had apparently unsuccessfully attempted to flush evidence, and, as the only
woman in the house, the purse containing plastic baggies, a drug ledger, a gun, and
ammunition was likely connected to her. The government also claims that De La
Cruz Nava’s claim of employment as a housekeeper/nanny was undermined by the
condition of the house and the lack of children on the premises.
-6-
The offense of conspiracy to distribute drugs has three elements: (1) the
existence of a conspiracy—that is, an agreement to distribute drugs; (2) the
defendant knew of the conspiracy; and (3) the defendant intentionally joined the
conspiracy. United States v. Sainz Navarrete, 955 F.3d 713, 718-19 (8th Cir. 2020).
It is virtually indisputable that the first two elements were established given the
testimony of the witnesses, the seizure of drugs, guns, ammunition, plastic baggies,
digital scales, and a drug ledger. The third element is more problematic. While our
precedent recognizes that proof a defendant joined a conspiracy may be shown
entirely through circumstantial evidence, see United States v. Jiminez, 487 F.3d
1140, 1146 (8th Cir. 2007), we have held that mere association or acquaintance with
a drug dealer and mere presence at the location of the crime are insufficient to
establish guilt on a conspiracy charge. See United States v. Cruz, 285 F.3d 692, 701
(8th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, “we will not lightly impute constructive possession of
drugs or other contraband to one found in another’s house.” Id. at 699.
Applying those principles here, De La Cruz Nava did not admit involvement
in the conspiracy, there is no evidence in the record that she was ever in physical
possession of either methamphetamine or drug proceeds, and no co-defendant,
cooperating or other witness testified that De La Cruz Nava was involved in drug
activity. We are also unable to find evidence that she acted as a courier, facilitated
any drug activity, directed any of the conspiracy’s activities, or acted in any manner
to advance the illegal end of the conspiracy. The government argues that because
De La Cruz Nava was the only woman in the house, a reasonable jury could infer
that the bag in the kitchen was a purse and belonged to her. But nothing in the bag
demonstrates or even suggests that it was a purse that belonged to a woman. There
is no ornamentation on the bag. There were no feminine personal items in the bag.
There was no identifying information tying it to De La Cruz Nava. The nondescript,
plain bag contained only drug trafficking-related items and is just the sort of storage
container that a drug trafficker might use to conceal items without calling attention
to himself or herself.
-7-
As to the government’s other claim that the condition of the house and
nonexistent children undermined De La Cruz Nava’s defense theory, a messy house
and an absence of children do not support an inference that De La Cruz Nava
intentionally joined a drug trafficking or money laundering conspiracy. More
problematic, the government’s argument on this point relies entirely on statements
taken from the presentence investigation report, not the trial record. There appears
to be no evidence before the jury regarding De La Cruz Nava’s representations.
What was before the jury and in the trial record is that: (1) De La Cruz Nava was
found by law enforcement in a locked bedroom, perhaps hiding or attempting to do
so, and there was an attached bathroom where methamphetamine was recovered; (2)
she had been in the United States for only a short time before she got arrested; (3)
while firearms, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia were scattered
throughout the house, no one ever saw De La Cruz Nava using drugs or engaging in
drug trafficking activity; (4) one witness saw De La Cruz Nava once in the living
room where a television was set to display the security camera footage; and (5) the
“purse”, which from the photographs depict a gender-neutral satchel could have
belonged to anyone inside the house or another co-conspirator that left it behind.
While evidence in the record of De La Cruz Nava’s knowledge of and participation
in a drug trafficking conspiracy is scant, it is a high burden to overturn a jury’s
verdict. We cannot say on this record, although a close call, that no reasonable jury
could have found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Turning to De La Cruz Nava’s claim that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied her motion for a new trial, a district court may grant a new
trial for insufficiency of the evidence “if the evidence weighs so heavily against the
verdict that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.” United States v. Harriman,
970 F.3d 1048, 1058 (8th Cir. 2023). When considering a motion under Rule 33,
the district court is to weigh the evidence anew, is permitted to disbelieve witnesses,
and may grant a new trial even if there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict.
United States v. Campos, 306 F.3d 577, 579 (8th Cir. 2002). We have noted that a
district court’s discretion under Rule 33 is broader than it is when considering a
motion for acquittal under Rule 29. Id. Unlike a motion for judgment of acquittal,
-8-
the district court need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government. See United States v. Lincoln, 630 F.2d 1313, 1319 (8th Cir. 1980)
(stating the issues in a motion for a new trial are “far different from those raised by
a motion for judgment of acquittal[,]” as the question before the court is not whether
a “defendant should be acquitted outright, but only whether he should have a new
trial”).
Here, in the introductory paragraphs of its order, the district court recited the
correct standard for a motion brought under Rule 33; however, it conducted no
analysis specific to De La Cruz Nava’s new trial motion. It disposed of the motion
with one sentence: “Similarly, the Court denies the motion for new trial pursuant to
Rule 33 because sufficient evidence was presented against Defendant De La Cruz-
Nava such that there was not a miscarriage of justice in the jury finding her guilty of
Counts 1-3.” There is no indication that the court weighed the evidence anew.
Likewise, we are unable to determine whether the district court disbelieved any of
the witnesses. Given the lack of any analysis, we are unable to discern whether the
district court incorrectly applied the standard applicable under Rule 29 to the new
trial request or whether it applied the proper, broader standard applicable under Rule
33. In short, we are unable to determine whether the district court abused its
discretion by not considering a matter than should have been given significant
weight or by giving significant weight to something improper or irrelevant, or if it
committed a clear error of judgment. United States v. Bass, 478 F.3d 948, 951 (8th
Cir. 2007). We remand to the district court for consideration of De La Cruz Nava’s
motion for a new trial as it relates to the drug trafficking conspiracy and related
firearms count.
As to the remaining count—the money laundering conspiracy conviction—
even assuming the government has demonstrated that De La Cruz Nava joined a
drug trafficking conspiracy, there is no evidence that she acted in a manner to
conceal the nature, source, location, ownership, or control of the conspiracy’s
proceeds. See United States v. Anwar, 880 F.3d 958, 968 (8th Cir. 2018) (listing the
four elements of money laundering, which includes, in relevant part, a financial
-9-
transaction involving proceeds of illegal activity that is conducted, or attempted,
with knowledge that “the transaction was designed in whole or in part to conceal or
disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control of the
proceeds of specified unlawful activity”). After careful review of the record, the
government has not met its burden of proving De La Cruz Nava made any efforts,
or knowingly participated in a conspiracy, to disguise drug proceeds. We vacate the
money laundering conspiracy conviction because no reasonable jury could have
found her guilty of this offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Evidentiary Questions in Guzman’s Proceedings
We turn to Guzman’s claims related to the denial of his request to present
witnesses by Zoom and the admission of his prior gun-related activity. We review
evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and reverse only if evidentiary rulings
constitute a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion. United States v. Never Misses
A Shot, 781 F.3d 1017, 1027 (8th Cir. 2015).
Importantly, the witnesses in question were not excluded. The district court
ruled that they could not appear via Zoom. There are obvious issues with allowing
a witness to testify over Zoom and these problems are amplified by the location of
the witnesses in a foreign country. While the parties dispute whether or not the
witnesses could travel to the United States to testify, by the time of trial the record
shows that it was possible for witnesses to appear in the United States. To the extent
any additional time might have been needed to secure the witnesses’ presence,
Guzman never sought a continuance, attempted to arrange the witnesses’ in-court
attendance, nor informed the court of what it might do to promote the attendance of
the witnesses. The district court did not err in refusing to allow Guzman’s alibi
witnesses to testify over Zoom. See United States v. Ali, 47 F.4th 691, 697 (8th Cir.
2022) (recognizing the district court’s broad discretion to conduct a trial in an orderly
and efficient manner and to choose among reasonable evidentiary alternatives).
-10-
Moreover, Guzman has failed to establish prejudice. Even if the witnesses
testified in a manner consistent with Guzman’s representations, the alibi evidence
was at most only a partial alibi. Guzman claims that he was in Mexico from 2016
into 2017, but even if this was established, the evidence of events occurring while
Guzman was indisputably in the United States is sufficient to support Guzman’s
convictions on all counts.
As to Guzman’s other asserted evidentiary challenge, while Guzman claims
that evidence regarding the unrelated assault with a firearm should not have been
admitted under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, his objection at trial
was non-specific, claiming only that the evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial.
The evidence was introduced to establish that Guzman had knowledge of firearms
and intent to use them. The evidence involved an incident that occurred eight years
earlier, so the relevance may be somewhat diminished by its age. But the use of the
firearm does tend to show that Guzman had knowledge of firearms and that he had
an intent to use firearms to his personal advantage. Our most relevant inquiry is
whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk
of unfair prejudice. See United States v. Drew, 9 F.4th 718, 723 (8th Cir. 2021)
(noting evidence is properly admitted under Rule 404(b) if it is relevant to a material
issue, similar in kind and not overly remote in time, is supported by sufficient
evidence, and its potential prejudice does not substantially outweigh its probative
value). After reviewing the record, we see no abuse of discretion or plain error in
the receipt of the testimony. More importantly, even if this were not the case, the
evidence of Guzman’s guilt is overwhelming and any error that may have occurred
is harmless.1 See United States v. Adams, 783 F.3d 1145, 1149 (8th Cir. 2015)
(stating evidentiary error is subject to harmless error analysis, which requires a
1
Guzman raised for the first time in his reply brief that the United States failed
to provide an appropriate notice under Rule 404(b). At no time has Guzman
explained his failure to raise this objection at trial or on appeal prior to the reply
brief. We will not consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief unless the
appellant provides a reason for failing to raise the issue in the opening brief. Jenkins
v. Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008).
-11-
showing that the substantial rights of the defendant were affected and the error
influenced the verdict).
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s order denying De La
Cruz Nava’s motion for judgment of acquittal, vacate De La Cruz Nava’s conviction
for conspiracy to commit money laundering, and direct the Clerk to enter judgment
on this count in favor of De La Cruz Nava. We reverse the district court’s order
denying a motion for a new trial on the remaining counts against De La Cruz Nava
and remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. As to
Guzman, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
______________________________
-12-