United States v. Ramon Hueso , 420 F. App'x 776 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30017
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-00048-RRB-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RAMON HUESO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, FISHER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
The evidence at trial was sufficient to support a reasonable jury’s conclusion
that Hueso agreed to participate in the conspiracy. Hueso not only repeatedly
fronted drugs knowing that he would be paid only if they were resold, but also
participated in and structured the final transaction. See United States v. Mincoff,
574 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009). Venue was proper because an overt act of the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
conspiracy – drug sales – occurred in Alaska. United States v. Corona, 34 F.3d
876, 879 (9th Cir. 1994).
The district court did not clearly err by finding Hueso was a “leader” within
the scope of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for purposes of applying a two-level
enhancement. Evidence reasonably showed he exercised decisionmaking authority
and directed his co-conspirator’s participation in and the terms of the final
transaction. See United States v. Maldonado, 215 F.3d 1046, 1050-51 (9th Cir.
2000); United States v. Varela, 993 F.2d 686, 691 (9th Cir. 1993).
The government’s information pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851 was sufficient to
give Hueso clear notice of the crime the government intended to use as the basis
for its request for an enhanced sentence, despite the information’s errors and
omissions. See United States v. Severino, 316 F.3d 939, 943 (9th Cir. 2003) (en
banc).
AFFIRMED.
2