United States v. Ramirez , 145 F. App'x 915 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 17, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40757
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
JOSE HERIBERTO RAMIREZ; NELSON RAMIREZ
Defendants-Appellants.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(03-CR-903)
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendants-Appellants Jose Heriberto Ramirez (“Jose”) and
Nelson Ramirez (“Nelson”) raise six challenges to their convictions
and sentences. We affirm.
I. FACTS & PROCEEDINGS
In October 2001, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“BICE”) Special Agent Victor Hugas received a call from a paid
informant, Martin Delgado, who told him that a white Chevrolet
Cavalier would deliver a large quantity of marijuana to a “stash
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
house” in Brownsville, Texas. Delgado, one of the occupants of the
Cavalier, gave Hugas the Cavalier’s route and the time frame of the
delivery. Delgado testified that he and the other passenger in the
Cavalier, his cousin Juan Rodriguez Cardenas, had driven earlier
that day to an area near the Rio Grande where they had picked up
the marijuana.
Following Delgado’s tip, six agents made contact with the
Cavalier and followed it to a residence at 420 Esperanza. The
agents watched the Cavalier pause in front of a wooden gate at that
address. While driving past the property with his passenger,
Special Agent Arturo Martinez, Hugas was able to peer over the
gate, directly onto the property.1 Hugas then parked the vehicle
three houses away. After several moments, two individuals ——
later identified as Jose and Nelson Ramirez —— were seen to walk
out of 420 Esperanza and open the gate to allow the Cavalier access
to the property. Delgado and Cardenas drove the Cavalier in and
parked it in front of the carport. Delgado got out of the
Cavalier, opened the trunk, and —— with the assistance of Nelson ——
removed the marijuana from the trunk. The Cavalier remained in the
1
Hugas testified at the suppression hearing that the gate was
approximately four feet high. Photographs of the property show
that the gate is ineffective as any sort of visual barrier to the
property. The right hand side of the gate – which opens outward
toward the street – connects to a utility pole at the sidewalk.
There is no additional barrier from the utility pole to 420
Esperanza, leaving a wide gap through which agents could observe
the activities on the property.
2
carport for one to three minutes, then left. The gate was closed
behind it.
Contiguous to the left side of 420 Esperanza is a canal.2 A
fence separates the house and the canal. A gate in the fence
allows access to the canal from the backyard of the house. After
the Cavalier left, a Southern Union Gas truck —— which had been
parked in the driveway —— backed into the street and parked to the
left of 420 Esperanza, next to the canal. The driver ——
defendants’ brother, Jesus Ramirez —— placed orange cones at each
end of the truck, turned on the hazard lights, and stood next to
the vehicle. Hugas testified that he watched Jose leave the
carport area, walk around the utility pole at the left corner of
the property, descend into the canal, then ascend out of the canal.
According to Hugas, Jose repeated this act approximately three
times. Hugas testified that he did not see Jose carrying any
object but that he stopped at the gas truck and spoke to Jesus.
After approximately thirty to forty minutes of surveillance,
all of the agents approached the house.3 There, they encountered
Jesus, Jose, and Nelson. The agents told the brothers that they
2
The parties also refer to the canal as a ditch.
3
Supervisory Agent Joseph Celaya testified that during
surveillance, he received a call notifying him that a vehicle was
leaving the premises. Together with Supervisory Agent Danny
Ibarra, Celaya followed the vehicle to Duran’s Grocery Store
(“Duran’s”). The events at Duran’s are irrelevant for purposes of
this appeal because they relate to the issue of Jose’s consent to
search 420 Esperanza, which, as we note below, we do not reach.
3
(the agents) had reason to believe that the brothers were in
possession of narcotics. The agents presented Jose with a United
States Customs Service Consent to Search form, which they explained
to him. After Jose signed that form, the agents proceeded to
search 420 Esperanza. The search produced no evidence of marijuana
in either the ground floor of the house or the carport.
In Nelson’s room, the agents found an empty Beretta pistol
case and a 40-millimeter magazine. The agents also discovered a
safe in Nelson’s room, which he opened for them. Inside the safe
was approximately $7,000 in cash. Nelson told the agents that the
cash was proceeds from a recent sale of a car. The agents did not
seize or count the cash. After completing their search of the
house, the agents searched the backyard area within the fence,
including the interior of a shed that they discovered there. They
found no marijuana.
Two apartments are located on the second story of 420
Esperanza. The doors to the apartments are located off the balcony
above the carport. Agents secured consent from the upstairs
residents to search the two apartments. In the apartment occupied
by Vanessa and Jose Garcia, agents discovered a large roll of
shrink wrap, well-known drug paraphernalia.
Hugas testified that, after the white Cavalier had left,
agents had observed Nelson standing on the balcony above the
carport. The balcony leads to the upstairs apartments. During the
course of the search, Hugas went to the balcony. At the location
4
where Nelson had been seen standing, Hugas found a loaded 9-
millimeter Glock pistol and extra magazine lying on a small ledge
underneath the handrail, at foot level. Hugas testified that, in
addition to access from the balcony, anyone standing at ground
level in the carport could easily reach up and retrieve the gun
from the ledge.
From his vantage point on the balcony, Hugas also noticed that
some of the foliage around the drainage canal was crushed. The
agents proceeded from 420 Esperanza toward the canal to continue
their search, passing through the backyard gate in the fence and
down into the canal. In it they discovered a press, which,
according to Hugas, was the kind used to press leafy marijuana into
brick form. No evidence was presented, however, that the press
contained any marijuana residue.
In the canal, the agents also discovered several loose bundles
of marijuana partially hidden by ground cover and wrapped in
cellophane. A black plastic bag containing two more bundles of
marijuana was discovered as well.
After finding the marijuana, the agents returned to the house.
They advised the three brothers of their constitutional rights and
obtained Jose’s signature on an advice-of-rights form. Hugas and
Special Agents Arturo Martinez and Jaime Cavazos then interviewed
Jose in the presence of Nelson and Jesus. Jose denied any
knowledge of the marijuana. When asked about the firearm, Jose
informed the agents that he was a felon and was not allowed to
5
possess a firearm. He also denied any knowledge of the white
Cavalier; yet when the agents informed him that they had conducted
a surveillance of the house, Jose told the agents that the
occupants of the Cavalier had business with the tenants of the
upstairs apartments. When the agents again asked Jose about the
marijuana found in the canal, he stated that the high volume of
narcotics activity in the area was the reason that he wanted to
move from 420 Esperanza. Although Nelson was present, the agents
did not interview him. After the agents completed their interview
with Jose, they left. Hugas testified that because no agent had
seen either Jose or Nelson handle the marijuana, the agents had no
probable cause to arrest either defendant at that time.
The next morning, Agent Martinez and several canine
enforcement officers returned to the canal, where they discovered
more marijuana. During the course of all their searches, the
agents seized a total of 82.25 kilograms —— or 182 pounds —— of
marijuana.
In July 2002, Agents Hugas’s continuing investigation of the
marijuana discovered in the canal led him to Cameron County Jail,
where he interviewed Juan Rodriguez Cardenas. When Hugas informed
Cardenas that they knew that he had been in the white Cavalier on
October 9, 2001, Cardenas agreed to cooperate in the investigation.
Before he could do so, however, Cardenas was deported.
In October 2003, Cardenas returned to the United States. When
Hugas discovered Cardenas at his home, he renewed his offer to
6
assist in the investigation. Hugas arrested Cardenas for unlawful
re-entry. At the police station, Hugas presented Cardenas with a
photographic array, from which he identified both Jose and Nelson
as the two men who had helped unload the marijuana from the
Cavalier.
The grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Jose,
Nelson, and Jesus, charging each with (1) conspiracy to possess
with intent to distribute approximately 82.25 kilograms of
marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and (2) possession with
intent to distribute approximately 82.25 kilograms of marijuana in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). Jose and
Nelson pleaded not guilty, but Jesus pleaded guilty and is not
involved in this appeal.
Jose and Nelson filed motions to suppress the marijuana
discovered in the canal and the handgun found on the ledge by the
balcony. They contended that the agents obtained the evidence in
violation of defendants’ Fourth Amendment rights. They also moved
to suppress statements allegedly taken in violation of their Fifth
Amendment rights. After two hearings on the motions to suppress,
the district court denied them.
At the end of defendants’ trial, the jury found them guilty on
each count. They filed a motion for a new trial, which the
district court denied. The district court ordered pre-sentence
investigation reports (“PSR”). Defendants lodged several
objections to the PSRs, all of which the district court overruled.
7
The court sentenced Jose to concurrent 92-month terms of
imprisonment and Nelson to concurrent 70-month terms of
imprisonment. Defendants timely appealed.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Motion to Suppress
1. Standard of Review
“In considering a ruling on a motion to suppress, we review
the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal
conclusions, including its ultimate conclusion as to the
constitutionality of the law enforcement action, de novo.”4 We
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party below, here, the government.5
2. Merits of the Motion
Defendants assert that the district court erred when it
concluded that the search and the ensuing seizure of the marijuana
did not implicate the Fourth Amendment because the agents had found
and seized the marijuana in an “open field” and not within the
protected curtilage of 420 Esperanza.6 Specifically, they contend
4
United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 483 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citing United States v. Carreon-Palacio, 267 F.3d 381, 387 (5th
Cir. 2001)).
5
United States v. Reyes, 349 F.3d 219, 222 (5th Cir. 2003)
(citing United States v. Jordan, 232 F.3d 447, 448 (5th Cir.
2000)).
6
Defendants challenged the admission of both the marijuana
and the handgun and ammunition on Fourth Amendment grounds in their
motions to suppress in the district court. Before us, defendants
8
that Hugas was at an unlawful vantage point —— the balcony —— when
he noticed the crushed foliage that led the agents to search the
canal.
Applying the four-part test announced in United States v.
Dunn,7 the district court held that the marijuana was not within
the protected curtilage of 420 Esperanza. The court concluded that
“[l]ying outside the ‘curtilage’ as it does, the drainage canal is
an ‘open field’ for Fourth Amendment purposes.” Accordingly, the
district court held that the search of the canal did not implicate
the Fourth Amendment. We agree.
In Hester v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “the
special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people
in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to
the open fields.”8 Although Katz v. United States9 —— which
redirected Fourth Amendment analysis to an individual’s
“constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy” ——
appeal the denial of their motions to suppress only to the extent
that the district court did not suppress the marijuana. They raise
no Fourth Amendment challenge to the district court’s ruling on the
handgun and ammunition. They have therefore abandoned this
argument. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993)
(“Yohey has abandoned these arguments by failing to argue them in
the body of his brief.”). Defendants challenge the district court’s
admission of the handgun and ammunition on evidentiary, as opposed
to Fourth Amendment, grounds.
7
480 U.S. 294 (1987).
8
265 U.S. 57, 59 (1924).
9
389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967).
9
called into question the “open fields” doctrine, the Supreme Court
reaffirmed its vitality in Oliver v. United States.10 In Oliver,
the Court explicitly held that “no expectation of privacy
legitimately attaches to open fields.”11
In contrast to open fields, the Fourth Amendment does extend
its protection to the curtilage of the home.12 The Supreme Court
has defined curtilage as “the area to which extends the intimate
activity associated with the ‘sanctity of a man’s home and the
privacies of life.’”13 To determine the extent of the curtilage,
courts have “reference[d] . . . the factors that determine whether
an individual reasonably may expect that an area immediately
adjacent to the home will remain private.”14 The Court has
announced four non-exclusive factors to aid us in determining
whether a particular area lies within the curtilage: (1) the
proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home; (2)
whether that area is within an enclosure surrounding the home; (3)
the nature of the uses to which the area is put; and (4) any steps
10
466 U.S. 170 (1984).
11
Id. at 180.
12
See id.
13
Id. (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630
(1886)).
14
Id.
10
taken by the resident to obscure the area from observation by
passersby.15
The district court correctly held that the majority of the
four factors weigh in favor of the conclusion that the canal is not
part of the curtilage and is thus an “open field.” The canal was
not within an enclosure surrounding the house.16 Indeed, it lay
outside the fence that surrounds the property at 420 Esperanza.17
In addition, defendants never used the canal for any purpose
whatsoever.18 Although defendants testified that at some point in
the past they maintained the canal area, Nelson later testified
that they do not use it on any regular basis for any purpose.
There was certainly no testimony that defendants used the canal
“for intimate activities of the home.”19 Further, defendants have
done nothing to protect the area from observation by the public.20
No barrier prohibits public access to or view of the canal, and
anyone can enter it from two different public streets.
15
Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301.
16
See id.
17
See id. at 302 (“It is also significant that respondent’s
barn did not lie within the area surrounding the house that was
enclosed by a fence.”).
18
See id.
19
See id.
20
See id. at 303.
11
Although the proximity of the canal to the house ——
approximately 30 feet —— weighs in defendants’ favor, the other
three factors indicate that the canal is not part of the curtilage.
Standing alone, the mere fact that the canal is close to
defendants’ home does not bring it within the curtilage: “It is
clear, however, that the term ‘open fields’ may include any
unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage. An open
field need be neither ‘open’ nor a ‘field’ as those terms are used
in common speech.”21 As the canal is an “open field,” as that term
is used in Fourth Amendment parlance, the agents’ search of the
canal and seizure of the marijuana in it did not violate the Fourth
Amendment.
Defendants nevertheless contend that Agent Hugas initially
observed the “open field” from the curtilage of 420 Esperanza.
Specifically, defendants assert that “the agents would not have
found the contraband but for the observations made and facts
learned as a result of their unlawful and warrantless entry into
the Appellant’s residence.” Defendants’ argument that a government
agent must first observe any alleged contraband from a lawful
vantage point —— i.e., an open field —— has support in the case
law. We and other courts have held that if the agents are standing
in an open field when they view the alleged contraband, the Fourth
21
Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180 n. 11.
12
Amendment is not implicated.22 As Agent Hugas was not in an open
field when he observed the canal, we must determine whether he
observed the crushed foliage, which first prompted the search of
the canal, from a lawful vantage point.
We reject defendants’ vantage-point argument on two grounds.23
First, the testimony presented at the hearing on the motion to
suppress shows that the agents initially observed suspicious
activity concerning the canal from their lawful vantage point
outside of the curtilage, well before the agents entered onto the
curtilage, and even further before Hugas ascended the stairs to the
balcony. Recall that Agent Hugas testified that after the white
Cavalier left the carport, Jesus pulled his Southern Union Gas
22
See United States v. Pace, 955 F.2d 270, 275 (5th Cir. 1992)
(“However, the holding of Dunn was that once the officers were
standing in open fields outside the curtilage of the home, they
were privileged to view the inside of the barn.” (emphasis added));
see also Daughenbaugh v. City of Tiffin, 150 F.3d 594, 601 (6th
Cir. 1998) (“In fact, the Dunn Court simply held that officers
could observe either open fields or curtilage as long as the
vantage point of the observation was outside the curtilage. . . .
The broadest principle that may be inferred from the Dunn opinion
is that officers may constitutionally view a protected area as long
as they make their observations from a lawful vantage point ——
i.e., a place located outside of the curtilage.”); United States v.
Traynor, 990 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Under Dunn and Pace,
it does not matter that officers first trespass upon property that
is obviously curtilage . . . while investigating a tip, as long as
the incriminating observations themselves take place outside the
protected curtilage.”), overruled on other grounds by United States
v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).
23
The district court held that Jose’s consent was irrelevant
to the motion to suppress. As the two grounds that we discuss are
dispositive, we do not reach Jose’s argument that his consent to
search 420 Esperanza was invalid.
13
truck out of the driveway, parking it on the public street in front
of the canal; that Jesus placed cones in front of and behind the
truck; that he turned on the truck’s hazard lights; and that agents
watched as Jose walked to the truck, talked to Jesus at the rear of
the truck and then went back and forth into and out of the canal
approximately three times. Coupled with the agents’ other
surveillance observations from a lawful vantage point —— a public
street —— and the confidential informant’s tip, the agents had “the
requisite level of cause” to search the “open field,” which is
itself bereft of Fourth Amendment protection.24 That Agent Hugas’s
curiosity was further piqued by his subsequent view of the canal
from the balcony is of no consequence.
We also conclude independently —— as did the district court ——
that defendants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the
balcony at 420 Esperanza. “The touchstone of Fourth Amendment
analysis is whether a person has a ‘constitutionally protected
reasonable expectation of privacy.’”25 Under the standard
enunciated in Katz, “[o]ur Fourth Amendment analysis embraces two
24
See, e.g., United States v. Sanchez, 689 F.2d 508, 513 (5th
Cir. 1982) (“While information supplied by an informant of unknown
reliability, standing alone, clearly does not establish probable
cause . . ., corroboration of that information by independent
observations (either) substantiating the details of the tip (or) .
. . of activity reasonably arousing suspicion itself may establish
the requisite level of cause to warrant a search.”) (internal
citations and quotations omitted)).
25
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 211 (1986) (quoting
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967) (Harlan, J.,
concurring)).
14
questions. First, we ask whether the individual, by his conduct,
has exhibited an actual expectation of privacy; that is, whether he
has shown that he [sought] to preserve [something] as private. . .
. Second, we inquire whether the individual’s expectation of
privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable.”26 To show that they had a constitutionally protected
expectation of privacy, then, defendants had to demonstrate both
that they attempted to preserve something as private (subjective)
and that society recognizes their expectation of privacy as
reasonable (objective).27 Whether a person possesses a reasonable
expectation of privacy is context-specific, and “‘each case must be
judged according to its own scenario.’”28
Here, defendants have failed to demonstrate that they had a
subjective expectation of privacy in the balcony at 420 Esperanza.
When testing common, or public, areas —— those areas to which the
public and others, such as law enforcement officers, have access ——
courts generally hold that a party possesses no reasonable
26
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 338 (2000) (citations
and internal quotations omitted).
27
See Kee v. City of Rowlett, Tx., 247 F.3d 206, 212 (5th Cir.
2001).
28
United States v. Burnette, 375 F.3d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 2004)
(quoting Vega Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 110 F.3d 174, 178
(1st Cir. 1997)), vacated on other grounds, 125 S. Ct. 1406 (2005)
(vacating and remanding in light of United States v. Booker, 125 S.
Ct. 738 (2005)).
15
expectation of privacy and that the Fourth Amendment is thus not
implicated.29
On the record here, defendants possessed no reasonable
expectation of privacy in the common balcony area on the second
floor above the carport. The area is accessible to anyone and
everyone —— the upstairs tenants, visitors, solicitors, and even
law enforcement officers who might wish to question a second-floor
tenant. Indeed, the entrances to the two upstairs apartments can
be reached only via the balcony. In addition, defendants have no
means by which to exclude anyone from the second-floor balcony. As
29
See, e.g., Burnette, 375 F.3d at 16 (“We have held that a
tenant lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common
areas of an apartment building. Such areas are exposed both to
those who have access to that area and those, including law
enforcement officers, who may be given permission to enter that
area.” (quotations and internal citations omitted)); United States
v. Hawkins, 139 F.3d 29, 32 (1st Cir. 1998) (“It is now beyond
cavil in this circuit that a tenant lacks a reasonable expectation
of privacy in the common areas of an apartment building.”); United
States v. Nohara, 3 F.3d 1239, 1242 (9th Cir. 1993) (“However, we
join the First, Second, and Eighth Circuits which have rejected
this rationale and held an apartment dweller has no reasonable
expectation of privacy in the common areas of a building whether
the officer trespasses or not.”); United States v. Acosta, 965 F.2d
1248, 1252 (3rd Cir. 1992) (“Thus, the inner hallway was easily
accessible to tenants, visitors, solicitors, workmen and other
members of the public. On the record, defendants had no way to
exclude anyone and, therefore, could not have reasonably expected
their privacy to extend beyond their apartment door.”); United
States v. DeWeese, 632 F.2d 1267, 1270 (5th Cir. 1980)
(“Nevertheless, in an area to which access is freely given to all
properly and lawfully within the close, it is apparent that, as to
them, a reasonable expectation of privacy does not exist in the
common area.”);
Many of these cases are commonly referred to as the
“apartment cases.” See United States v. Anderson, 154 F.3d 1225,
1232 n. 3 (10th Cir. 1998).
16
noted, the gate that leads to the carport does not restrict
pedestrian access to the property in general or to the stairs that
lead to the second floor in particular. Anyone who wishes to
proceed to the second floor of 420 Esperanza may do so freely
without hindrance and must do so by way of the stairs and the
balcony. The conclusion is inescapable that defendants could have
possessed no reasonable expectation of privacy in the second floor
balcony from which Agent Hugas viewed the crushed foliage in the
adjacent canal. Absent a valid expectation of privacy by
defendants, Agent Hugas was standing at a lawful vantage point when
he viewed the crushed foliage. The district court did not err when
it denied defendants’ motions to suppress.
B. Admissibility of the Handgun and the Ammunition
1. Standard of Review
We review a district court’s determination as to the
admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion.30 In a criminal
case, however, our standard of review of the district court’s
evidentiary rulings is necessarily heightened.31 If we find an
abuse of discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence, we
review the error under the harmless error doctrine.32 Under this
30
United States v. West, 22 F.3d 586, 591 (5th Cir. 1994).
31
United States v. Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d 863, 869 (5th
Cir. 1998).
32
United States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 364 (5th Cir. 1998)
(citing United States v. Skipper, 74 F.3d 608, 612 (5th Cir.
1996)).
17
standard, we must affirm an evidentiary ruling unless it affects a
substantial right of the complaining party.33
2. Analysis
Agent Hugas discovered a Glock 9-millimeter handgun and
ammunition magazine in plain view from the balcony. They were on
a small ledge above the carport at 420 Esperanza. Defendants
insist that the district court abused its discretion when it
admitted the handgun and magazine because no evidence connected it
to either appellant. Jose and Nelson point out that the evidence
was not discovered (1) inside their residence, (2) on their
persons, or (3) in an area within their exclusive control.
Defendants also note that the evidence was discovered outside the
second-story balcony of the two-story structure, on a floor
containing two other apartments occupied by third parties. Nelson
further notes that the Glock 9-millimeter is not the type of gun
that would fit in the Beretta gun case that the agents found in his
room.
Defendants contend that under Federal Rules of Evidence 403
and 404(b), the firearm, whether intrinsic or extrinsic evidence,
is inadmissible because the unfairly prejudicial effect outweighs
any probative value. The government’s only response is that the
district court properly admitted the firearm based on courts’
33
See id.
18
recognition that firearms are “‘tools of the trade’ of those
engaged in illegal drug activities.”34
We first address whether the firearm and ammunition is
intrinsic or extrinsic evidence. Evidence of extraneous acts is
“‘intrinsic’ when the evidence of the other act and the evidence of
the crime charged are ‘inextricably intertwined’ or both acts are
part of a ‘single criminal episode’ or other acts were necessary
preliminaries to the crime charged.”35 A district court may admit
intrinsic evidence to permit the jury to evaluate all the
circumstances under which a defendant may have acted.36 Federal
Rule of Evidence 404(b) does not apply to intrinsic-act evidence.37
We conclude, however, that the evidence of the handgun and
ammunition is not intrinsic. There is no evidence that the handgun
and ammunition found by Hugas was “inextricably intertwined” with
the drug trafficking and possession offenses; neither was it part
34
See United States v. Martinez, 808 F.2d 1050, 1057 (5th Cir.
1987).
35
United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823, 825 (5th Cir. 1990)
(citing United States v. Torres, 685 F.2d 921, 924 (5th Cir.
1982)).
36
See United States v. Royal, 972 F.2d 643, 647 (5th Cir.
1992).
37
United States v. Powers, 168 F.3d 741, 749 (5th Cir. 1999)
(citing United States v. Garcia, 27 F.3d 1009, 1014 (5th Cir.
1994)).
19
of a single criminal episode or preliminary to the drug offenses
charged. We thus deduce that the evidence had to be extrinsic.38
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) —— which does apply to
extrinsic evidence —— states, in pertinent part:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not
admissible to prove the character of a person in order to
show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be
admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive,
opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
identity, or absence of mistake or accident . . . .39
We have articulated a two-part test to determine whether a district
court properly admits extrinsic evidence: “First, it must be
determined that the extrinsic offense evidence is relevant to an
issue other than the defendant’s character. Second, the evidence
must possess probative value that is not substantially outweighed
by its undue prejudice and must meet the other requirements of Rule
403.”40
Under Beechum, we must determine whether the evidence of the
firearm and ammunition is relevant to an issue other than
defendants’ character. Before doing so, however, we must first
38
See United States v. Townsend, No. 97-60491, 1999 WL 427597,
at *8 (5th Cir. June 24, 1999) (opinion withdrawn from
publication).
39
FED. R. EVID. 404(b).
40
Hernandez-Guevara, 162 F.3d at 870 (citing United States v.
Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc)).
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 provides that “[a]lthough
relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice . . . .
FED. R. EVID. 403.
20
decide whether the government offered sufficient proof that
defendants committed the extrinsic acts in question.41 “If the
proof is insufficient, the judge must exclude the evidence because
it is irrelevant.”42 Here, the undisputed testimony of Agent Hugas
revealed that, during surveillance, the agents observed Nelson
Ramirez on the second floor balcony where the gun was discovered.
Further, the firearm and ammunition were discovered in the vicinity
of the carport —— where they were accessible by hand to anyone
standing underneath the carport, the area at which defendants
offloaded the marijuana. Although no direct evidence demonstrated
that either defendant physically handled the firearm or ammunition,
“this Court has held that the Government is only obliged to show
that the firearm was available to provide protection to the
defendant in connection with his engagement in drug trafficking; a
showing that the weapon was used, handled or brandished in an
affirmative manner is not required.”43 Ample circumstantial
evidence linked the handgun and ammunition spatially to the
defendants and the events that transpired in the vicinity of the
carport at 420 Esperanza, viz., unloading marijuana from the trunk
of the Cavalier.
41
Beechum, 582 F.2d at 912-13.
42
Id. at 913.
43
United States v. Molinar-Apodaca, 889 F.2d 1417, 1424 (5th
Cir. 1989).
21
In addition, under Beechum’s first prong, the evidence is
clearly relevant to an issue other than defendants’ character. The
accessibility of the firearm and ammunition to anyone in or around
the carport, and Nelson’s position on the balcony near where these
items were found, inferentially illustrate defendants’ intent to
participate in a drug trafficking crime.44
Neither do we conclude that any unfairly prejudicial effect of
the firearm and ammunition could outweigh its probative value. We
have consistently held that firearms are “tools of the trade” of
drug traffickers.45 Proximity or accessibility of firearms is
therefore highly probative of criminal intent.46 The district court
did not abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of the
handgun and the ammunition.
C. Jose’s Prior Convictions
At trial, Texas state parole official Cristela Dow testified
that Jose had two prior convictions, one for possession of 1,175
pounds of marijuana, for which he was assessed a six-year term of
imprisonment, and another for felonious possession of dangerous
drugs, for which he was sentenced to seven years probation. Jose
argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), his two prior
44
See United States v. Beverly, 921 F.2d 559, 563 (5th Cir.
1991) (holding, in context of conviction under 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1), that presence of guns and ammunition illustrate intent
to facilitate drug trafficking crimes).
45
See id.
46
Martinez, 808 F.2d at 1057.
22
convictions were irrelevant to the crime for which he was on trial
here. The government notified the district court that it intended
to offer evidence of Jose’s prior convictions to demonstrate his
intent and knowledge of the instant offenses. Jose counters that
because the government offered only the fact of the prior
convictions and the sentences assessed, these aspects are not
probative of his knowledge and intent. Further, Nelson insists
that the admission of Jose’s prior convictions prejudiced him
(Nelson) because they did not involve him. To determine whether
the district court properly admitted Jose’s prior convictions, we
apply the same standard of review enunciated above.47
In deciding whether the district court abused its discretion,
we use the two-part Beechum test. First, we must conclude that the
prior convictions are relevant to an issue other than the
defendant’s character.48 “Once it is determined that the extrinsic
offense requires the same intent as the charged offense,” the
extrinsic evidence “satisfies the first step” of Beechum.49 “If
offered to show intent, relevancy of the extrinsic evidence is
determined by comparing it to the state of mind of the defendant in
47
See United States v. Jackson, 339 F.3d 349, 354 (5th Cir.
2003) (citing United States v. Wisenbaker, 14 F.3d 1022, 1028 (5th
Cir. 1994)).
48
Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911.
49
Id. at 913.
23
perpetrating the respective offenses.”50 As Jose pleaded not
guilty, he placed his intent at issue.51 Accordingly, because
Jose’s prior convictions for possession of controlled substances
required the same intent as the federal possession and intent-to-
distribute crimes with which he was charged here, his prior
convictions were relevant to an issue other than his character
under Rule 404(b).52 The first step of Beechum is satisfied.
Under the second step of Beechum, we must decide whether the
probative value of the evidence outweighs any possible unfair
prejudice.53 “The probative value of extrinsic offense evidence
‘must be determined with regard to the extent to which the
defendant’s unlawful intent is established by other evidence,
stipulation, or inference.’”54 As the prosecution presented little
evidence of Jose’s intent apart from his prior convictions, the
probative value of these convictions was greater.55 In addition,
because Jose and Nelson strenuously attacked the credibility of the
50
United States v. Duffaut, 314 F.3d 203, 209 (5th Cir. 2002)
(citing United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1173 (5th Cir.
1986)).
51
United States v. Thomas, 348 F.3d 78, 85 (5th Cir. 2003);
United States v. Chavez, 119 F.3d 342, 346 (5th Cir. 1997).
52
Duffaut, 314 F.3d at 209.
53
Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911.
54
United States v. Buchanan, 70 F.3d 818, 831 (5th Cir. 1996)
(quoting Beechum, 582 F.2d at 914).
55
See id.
24
government’s informant, they “enhance[d] the probity of the prior
offense evidence by placing [their] intent and state of mind at
issue.”56 And, because the district court issued a limiting
instruction —— both when the evidence was admitted and again in the
final charge —— regarding the extent that the jury could consider
the prior convictions, the court reduced any likelihood of
prejudice as to both Jose and Nelson.57 We have consistently held
that “evidence of a defendant’s prior conviction for a similar
crime is more probative than prejudicial and that any prejudicial
effect may be minimized by a proper jury instruction.”58 We reject
defendants’ evidentiary challenge to the admission of Jose’s prior
convictions.
D. The “Deliberate Ignorance” Instruction
1. Standard of Review
We review a challenge to a deliberate ignorance instruction
“‘using the standard of whether the court’s charge, as a whole, is
a correct statement of the law and whether it clearly instructs
jurors as to principles of law applicable to the factual issues
56
Id.
57
Thomas, 348 F.3d at 86; Duffaut, 314 F.3d at 210; Buchanan,
70 F.3d at 831.
Indeed, as to Nelson’s argument that the admission of Jose’s
prior convictions prejudiced him, the limiting instruction
specifically provided that the prior offenses did not pertain to
every defendant on trial.
58
United States v. Taylor, 210 F.3d 311, 318 (5th Cir. 2000).
25
confronting them.’”59 To determine whether the evidence supports
a deliberate ignorance instruction, “the court should examine the
evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most
favorable to the government.”60
Here, we review defendants’ objection for plain error only, as
neither defendant objected contemporaneously to the district
court’s deliberate ignorance instruction.61 Plain error review
entails a determination (1) whether an error existed; (2) if it
did, whether it is clear and plain; (3) if it is, whether it
affected the defendant’s substantial rights; and (4) if it did,
whether it affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
judicial proceedings.62
2. Merits of Claim of Error
Defendants assert that the district court erred by giving the
jury an instruction regarding deliberate ignorance.63 As “[t]he
59
United States v. Saucedo-Munoz, 307 F.3d 344, 348 (5th Cir.
2002) (quoting United States v. Wisenbaker, 14 F.3d 1022, 1027 (5th
Cir. 1994)).
60
United States v. Cartwright, 6 F.3d 294, 301 (5th Cir. 1993)
(citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942)).
61
See FED. R. CRIM. P. 30(d) & 52(b).
62
United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 443 (5th Cir. 2001).
63
The deliberate ignorance instruction read as follows:
You may find that a defendant had knowledge of a fact if
you find that the defendant deliberately closed his eyes
to what would otherwise have been obvious to him. While
knowledge on the part of the defendants cannot be
established merely by demonstrating that the defendants
were negligent, careless or foolish, knowledge can be
26
instruction allows the jury to convict without finding that the
defendant actually was aware of the existence of illegal conduct,”
we have noted that, “[w]here, as here, the mens rea required for
conviction is that the defendant acted ‘knowingly’ or
‘intentionally,’ a deliberate ignorance instruction creates a risk
that the jury might convict for negligence or stupidity.”64
As a deliberate ignorance instruction could confuse the jury,
it “should rarely be given.”65 A district court may properly issue
a deliberate ignorance instruction when the evidence demonstrates
“(1) subjective awareness of a high probability of the existence of
illegal conduct, and (2) purposeful contrivance to avoid learning
of the illegal conduct.”66
Jose and Nelson’s defense proceeded on a theory that both
defendants were entirely unaware of any drug-related activity that
occurred at 420 Esperanza. Trail testimony of the government’s
witnesses —— credited by the jury —— put both defendants in the
vicinity of the carport when the Cavalier arrived. The defendants
opened the gate to allow the Cavalier access to the property. The
inferred if the defendants deliberately blinded
themselves to the existence of a fact.
64
Id. at 347-48 (citing Cartwright, 6 F.3d at 301.
65
United States v. Obejode, 957 F.2d 1218, 1229 (5th Cir.
1992).
66
United States v. Threadgill, 172 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir.
1999) (citing United States v. Cavin, 39 F.3d 1299, 1310 (5th Cir.
1994)).
27
Cavalier was at 420 Esperanza for only several minutes.
Immediately after the Cavalier pulled onto the property, its trunk,
which contained the marijuana, was open, and both defendants were
present. The unloading of the marijuana therefore occurred in the
immediate vicinity and view of defendants. Indeed, there was
testimony from Martin Delgado and Juan Cardenas that both
defendants were present when the marijuana was unloaded and that
one of them helped. The agents also observed Jose traveling back
and forth between the carport area and the canal where the
marijuana was later found. As defendants advanced the theory that
they were unaware of any drug-related activity, the trial court did
not plainly err in delivering a deliberate ignorance instruction:
The defense of unawareness certainly could amount to a “charade of
ignorance” that the jury could have considered “as circumstantial
proof of guilty knowledge.”67
Further, “[a]lthough our caselaw [sic] prohibits a deliberate
ignorance instruction where there is evidence of only actual
knowledge, we are unaware of any cases suggesting that a deliberate
ignorance instruction is improper where evidence may be construed
as showing either actual knowledge or contrivance to avoid learning
the truth.”68 Our precedent thus allows a district court to issue
67
United States v. Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 476 (5th Cir. 1999)
(quoting United States v. McKinney, 53 F.3d 664, 676 (5th Cir.
1995)) (internal quotations omitted).
68
Saucedo-Munoz, 307 F.3d at 349 (emphasis in original)
(internal citation omitted).
28
a deliberate ignorance instruction alongside evidence of actual
knowledge.69 As the evidence strongly suggests that Jose and Nelson
had actual knowledge of the unloading of the marijuana —— indeed,
that they participated in unloading it —— they, as defendants who
claimed ignorance as a defense, “should not be able to avoid a
deliberate indifference instruction because [their] conduct might
also be construed as evincing actual knowledge.”70 The district
court did not err when it gave the jury a deliberate ignorance
instruction.
E. Sufficiency of the Evidence
1. Standard of Review
We must affirm a conviction in the face of a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence “if a rational trier of fact could have
found that the evidence established the essential elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”71 We consider the evidence, all
reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence, and all credibility
determinations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
here, the government.72 We neither weigh the evidence nor assess
the credibility of the witnesses.73 “The evidence need not exclude
69
See id. at 349 & n. 3 (listing cases).
70
Id.
71
United States v. Lopez, 74 F.3d 575, 577 (5th Cir. 1996
(citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)).
72
Id. (citing Glasser, 315 U.S. at 80).
73
See id.
29
every reasonable hypothesis of innocence or be wholly inconsistent
with every conclusion except that of guilt, and the jury is free to
choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence.”74 If the
evidence lends equal support to a finding of guilt or innocence,
however, we must reverse because under these circumstances, “a
reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.”75
2. Merits of the Claim of Insufficient Evidence
To prove the existence of a conspiracy to possess with the
intent to distribute marijuana under 21 U.S.C. § 846, the
government must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1)
that an agreement existed to violate the federal narcotics laws;
(2) that the defendant knew of the existence of the agreement; and
(3) that the defendant voluntarily participated in the agreement.76
Proof that the defendants possessed marijuana with the intent
to distribute it requires the government to show (1) possession of
the controlled substance, (2) knowledge, and the (3) requisite
intent to distribute.77 Proof that defendants aided and abetted
the crime of possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute
it pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2, requires the government to show that
74
Id. (citing United States v. Salazar, 66 F.3d 723, 728 (5th
Cir. 1995)).
75
Id. (quoting United States v. Sanchez, 961 F.2d 1169, 1173
(5th Cir. 1992)) (emphasis in original).
76
United States v. Brackett, 113 F.3d 1396, 1399 (5th Cir.
1997).
77
Cartwright, 6 F.3d at 299.
30
“‘(1) the defendant associated with the criminal venture, (2)
participated in the venture, and (3) sought by action to make the
venture succeed.’”78 “Association means that the defendant shared
in the criminal intent of the principal.”79 “Participation means
that the defendant engaged in some affirmative conduct designed to
aid in the venture.”80 For both intent to distribute and aiding and
abetting, proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defendants’ principal challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence concern the (1) knowledge/intent, and (2) possession
elements of the offenses. Defendants correctly note that
“‘presence at the crime scene or close association with
conspirators, standing alone, will not support an inference of
participation in the conspiracy.’”81 It is equally well-
established, however, that “presence or association is a factor
that, along with other evidence, may be relied upon to find
conspiratorial activity by the defendant.”82
78
United States v. Sorrells, 145 F.3d 744, 753 (5th Cir. 1998)
(quoting United States v. Gallo, 927 F.2d 815, 822 (5th Cir.
1991)).
79
United States v. Salazar, 66 F.3d 723, 729 (5th Cir. 1995).
80
Id.
81
United States v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 935 (5th Cir. 1997)
(quoting United States v. Maltos, 985 F.2d 743, 746 (5th Cir.
1992)) (emphasis added).
82
Id. (quoting United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139, 1157
(5th Cir. 1993)) (emphasis added).
31
As to the conspiracy count, the confidential informant, Martin
Delgado, explicitly testified that the defendants opened the gates
of 420 Esperanza for the white Cavalier and that Nelson assisted in
the unloading of the marijuana from the car’s trunk. Juan
Cardenas, Delgado’s cousin and the other passenger in the Cavalier,
testified to the same facts. Agents Hugas and Kristin Rosenbeck
testified that both Jose and Nelson opened the gate at 420
Esperanza. Agent Martinez, the passenger in Hugas’s vehicle,
testified that the trunk of the Cavalier was open as their
surveillance vehicle passed by 420 Esperanza moments after the
vehicle parked under the carport.
Delgado also testified that Nelson and Jose were present when
the bundles were unloaded from the trunk and that the bundles
smelled of marijuana. Cardenas too testified that both defendants
were present at this time, and that Delgado and defendants
offloaded the marijuana.
Agents observed Jose repeatedly entering and exiting the canal
in which the agents eventually discovered the marijuana. Evidence
admitted at trial revealed that the packages discovered in the
canal were the same bundles that defendants had helped unload from
the Cavalier. When all this evidence is viewed as a whole, it is
more than sufficient to support the convictions of both Jose and
Nelson on the conspiracy count.83
83
Gonzalez, 121 F.3d at 935 (“The agreements, a defendant’s
guilty knowledge and a defendant’s participation in the conspiracy
32
Defendants nevertheless rely heavily on United States v.
Gardea Carrasco84 as support for their argument that the conspiracy
conviction cannot stand. In Gardea Carrasco, we reversed one
defendant’s conspiracy conviction because no evidence was adduced
at trial that he knew that the suitcases —— which he unloaded from
a truck and transferred to a plane —— were full of controlled
substances.85 Gardea Carrasco is inapposite. Here, the record
contains sufficient evidence that defendants knew that the bundles
that they unloaded from the Cavalier contained controlled
substances. Indeed, Delgado testified that the bundles smelled of
marijuana. Moreover, the jury could have reasonably concluded that
defendants knew of the controlled substances, as they purposefully
hid the bundles in the canal outside their home. The obvious
inference is that if the bundles had contained nothing but lawful
substances, there would have been no reason to hide them in the
canal.
Regarding the possession count, “[p]ossession may be actual or
constructive and may be joint among several defendants.”86 As the
knowledge element in a possession case will rarely be supported by
all may be inferred from the development and collocation of
circumstances.” (internal quotations omitted)).
84
830 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1987).
85
See id. at 45.
86
United States v. Molinar-Apodaca, 889 F.2d 1417, 1423 (5th
Cir. 1989) (citing United States v. Vergara, 687 F.2d 57, 61 (5th
Cir. 1982)).
33
direct evidence,87 we have recognized that a possession count may
be established by circumstantial evidence alone.88 Knowledge may
also be inferred from “control over the location in which [the
drugs] are found.”89 Further, we have recognized that “the intent
to distribute may be inferred from the value and quantity of the
substance possessed.”90
Having closely reviewed the entire record, we easily conclude
that the government adduced evidence at trial sufficient to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants had (1) the requisite
knowledge of the marijuana and (2) the intent to distribute it, to
support their convictions on the possession count. As noted, both
Delgado and Cardenas testified —— testimony credited by the jury ——
that both defendants were present during the unloading of the
marijuana. Defendants exercised control over the canal where the
marijuana was found —— indeed, they own to the center line of the
canal. In addition, the jury could have reasonably inferred that
defendants had the requisite intent to distribute the marijuana
because of the vast quantity found by the agents. We reject
defendants’ challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
F. Sentencing
87
United States v. Garza, 990 F.2d 171, 174 (5th Cir. 1993).
88
Molinar-Apodaca, 889 F.2d at 1423 (citing United States v.
Wilson, 657 F.2d 755, 760 (5th Cir. 1981)).
89
United States v. Moreno, 185 F.3d 465, 471 (5th Cir. 1999).
90
Id.
34
Defendants each raise two challenges to the sentences that the
district court imposed. They first raise an Apprendi/Sixth
Amendment challenge to the district court’s calculation of their
base offense levels. Defendants argue that the district court
should have calculated their base offense levels at 20, for an
offense involving between 40 to 60 kilograms of marijuana, as
opposed to 24, for an offense involving between 80 and 100
kilograms of marijuana. They base this challenge on the alleged
conflict between the drug amounts specified in the indictment and
those in the jury verdict form, arguing that the jury found them
guilty of conspiring to possess and of possessing with the intent
to distribute only 50 kilograms of marijuana as stated on the
verdict form. Defendants also challenge the district court’s
increase of their base offense level by two levels for possession
of a firearm in connection with the offense under U.S.S.G. §
2D1.1(b)(1).
Defendants concede that they lodged no Sixth Amendment
objection to their sentences in the district court. Accordingly,
our review is for plain error.91 Again, plain error review entails
a determination whether (1) an error existed; (2) the error was
clear and plain; (3) the error affected the defendant’s substantial
91
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005).
35
rights; and (4) the error affected the fairness, integrity, or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.92
Here, plain error exists —— as we have held in all
Apprendi/Booker challenges —— so we must determine whether the
error affected defendants’ substantial rights.93 To demonstrate
that the district court’s imposition of their sentences affected
their substantial rights, defendants must show that the sentencing
judge —— proceeding under an advisory rather than a mandatory
guidelines regime —— would have arrived at a significantly
different result.94
Defendants have made no such showing. They point to nothing
in the record to indicate that the district court would have
sentenced them any differently had it sentenced them under an
advisory guidelines regime. Neither have we found any evidence
that it would have done so. Defendants have failed to carry their
burden.95
92
United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 443 (5th Cir. 2001).
93
See Mares, 402 F.3d at 521-22.
94
See id.
95
Defendants contend that because the district court sentenced
them at the bottom of the Guidelines range, it would have sentenced
them differently had it considered the Guidelines advisory. We
have rejected this argument before and do so again now. See United
States v. Hernandez-Gonzalez, 405 F.3d 260 (5th Cir. 2005)
(rejecting defendant’s argument that sentencing judge would have
sentenced him differently because, inter alia, judge sentenced him
at bottom of Guidelines range); see also United States v. Garcia-
Gil, 133 Fed. Appx. 102 (5th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (“Therefore,
merely showing a sentence at the bottom of the applicable guideline
36
Defendants nevertheless assert that our plain-error standard
of review enunciated in Mares “flies in the face of United States
v. Booker . . . and was effectively overruled three days after it
was decided [by] Shepard v. United States.” These arguments are
unavailing. Mares is the law of this circuit until either the en
banc court or the United States Supreme Court determines
otherwise.96 Neither did the holding in Shepard that under the
Armed Career Criminal Act, a district court could not use a police
report to enhance a sentence,97 affect our holding in Mares that,
when a defendant fails to lodge a Sixth Amendment objection in
district court, we review for plain error. Defendants’ arguments
are unavailing.
III. CONCLUSION
range, as Garcia-Gil does, is insufficient to show plain error in
his sentence.”).
We also note that defendants’ challenge to their base offense
level on drug quantity is specious. The indictment specifically
alleged that defendants were guilty of conspiring to possess and of
possessing with the intent to distribute a drug quantity of “more
than 50 kilograms, that is, approximately 82.25 kilograms (180.95
pounds) of marihuana.” Although the verdict form does not specify
82.25 kilograms of marijuana, it did state that the jury found
defendants guilty of conspiring to possess and of possessing with
the intent to distribute “at least 50 kilograms of marihuana, as
charged in the indictment.” As the indictment specified the amount
of 82.25 kilograms of marijuana, it was not plain error for the
district court to use that quantity in its determination of
defendants’ base offense levels.
96
United States v. McPhail, 119 F.3d 326, 327 (5th Cir. 1997).
97
—— U.S. ——, 125 S. Ct. 1254, 1260 (Mar. 7, 2005).
37
We reject defendants’ challenges to their convictions and
sentences. The judgment of the district court is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
38