U.S. v. Granados
| Decision Date | 08 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09-1570.,09-1570. |
| Citation | 596 F.3d 970 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Ever David GRANADOS, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
v.
Ever David GRANADOS, Appellant.
[596 F.3d 971]
David W. Siebrasse, argued, Pierre, SD, for Appellant.
Timothy Marshall Maher, argued, AUSA, Pierre, SD, for Appellee.
Before BYE, BEAM, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
BYE, Circuit Judge.
Ever David Granados appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiring to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. He contends the district court1 should have suppressed physical evidence found in warrantless searches of a hotel room and vehicle, statements he made to police officers after the searches, and evidence related to an allegedly suggestive photo lineup. He also claims the government exercised peremptory strikes of certain venirepersons in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Finally, he appeals his sentence of thirty-eight months arguing the district court2
erred in its drug quantity calculations. We affirm.
This drug conspiracy charge against Granados arose from an incident which occurred at the Kelly Inn in Pierre, South Dakota, on June 14, 2008. Two weeks earlier, an individual named Travis Napton got caught possessing several pounds of marijuana; he agreed to cooperate with law enforcement and provide information about his supplier, a man named Gonzalo Lechuga Morales. Napton revealed that he owed Morales nearly $7,500 for a drug debt.
On June 14, Morales called Napton to tell him he was on his way to South Dakota to collect the debt. Napton allowed agents from the local drug task force to monitor and record his phone conversations. During the phone calls, Morales discussed plans to meet Napton at a hotel room to take care of the debt, consistently using the pronoun "we" when referring to himself, suggesting to law enforcement that he was not traveling alone. As Morales neared Pierre, one of the law enforcement agents drove out of town to observe the approaching vehicle. The agent saw a green Ford Expedition with two occupants. The man accompanying Morales turned out to be Granados, and a registration check on the Ford Expedition showed someone named David Granados owned the vehicle.
After Granados and Morales arrived in Pierre, Napton called Morales for instructions on where to meet. Morales said the exchange would take place at room 250 of the Kelly Inn. The task force then gave Napton $3,970 to use as partial payment for a controlled exchange. Napton called Morales again after arriving at the Kelly Inn and was invited to room 250. Following the task force's instructions, Napton declined to come up to the room and instead arranged to meet Morales in Granados's vehicle, located in the hotel parking lot. After the exchange of money took place, law enforcement agents arrested Morales.
Immediately after Morales's arrest in the parking lot, the officers proceeded to room 250. They smelled the odor of marijuana in the hallway outside the door. Using a room key card provided by the front desk, officers entered the room without a warrant and without knocking, found Granados, and placed him under arrest as well. After Granados was arrested, he signed a consent form allowing the officers to search both the hotel room and his Ford Expedition. Both the room and truck were subsequently searched and various items of incriminating physical evidence were found, including three cell phones, a piece of paper showing multiplication calculations involving 570 x 25 and 570 x 15 (later, it was determined "570" referred to the price of a pound of marijuana, and the "25" and "15" referred to shipments of twenty-five and fifteen pounds of marijuana), marijuana, and zig-zag rolling papers.
The officers took Granados to the Hughes County Jail in Pierre. Granados was advised of, and waived, his Miranda3 rights. He then denied any knowledge of the drug dealing between Morales and Napton, but made statements about his relationship with Morales that could be used as incriminating evidence.
On June 16, 2008, an officer showed Napton a photo lineup which included Granados's photo. Napton pointed to Granados's photo and said he could have been one of the people Napton had previously dealt with in a drug transaction with Morales's brother. After Morales was arrested, he began cooperating with authorities
as well, disclosing incriminating information about Granados. Morales admitted his involvement in a conspiracy to bring bricks of marijuana to South Dakota, and that Granados was one of his partners.
On June 24, 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Granados with conspiring to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Prior to trial, Granados filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search of the hotel room and the Expedition, as well as the statements he later made to law enforcement, and evidence from the allegedly improper photo lineup. The motion to suppress was denied.
During trial, the government exercised peremptory strikes against three Native American venirepersons, leaving no minorities on the jury panel. Granados challenged the strikes under Batson. The district court denied the Batson challenges after determining the government gave race-neutral reasons for the strike.
At trial, both Napton and Morales testified regarding a number of deliveries of marijuana that took place in South Dakota, and Morales indicated Granados was part of the conspiracy. The evidence included Napton's identification of Granados in the photo lineup. The jury convicted Granados. At sentencing, the district court attributed 22.68 kilograms of marijuana to Granados based on the testimony given by Morales and Napton during the trial. This resulted in an advisory guidelines sentence of 33-41 months. The district court then sentenced Granados to thirty-eight months. This timely appeal followed.
Granados first challenges the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless searches of the hotel room and truck, the statements he gave after those searches, and the photo lineup. "We review a district court's factual determinations supporting the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo." United States v. Griffith, 533 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.2008).
The district court found probable cause and exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless entry into the hotel room. The district court also found Granados gave valid consent for the subsequent search of the hotel room and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Drisdel
...who were not also struck from the panel and the State's explanations for each strike were arguably credible. See U.S. v. Granados, 596 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir.2010) (holding outstanding warrant for arrest of potential juror is valid, race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike.); ......
-
U.S. v. Bordeaux, 3:10-cv-03015
...F.C. because her ex-husband was in prison and law enforcement had had numerous contacts with her children. See United States v. Granados, 596 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding that incarceration of a family member is a valid race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge); U......
-
State v. Drisdel
...who were not also struck from the panel and the State's explanations for each strike were arguably credible. See U.S. v. Granados, 596 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding outstanding warrant for arrest of potential juror is valid, race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike.);......
-
Drisdel v. Lewis
...from the panel and that the State's explanations for each strike were arguably credible. Id. at 7 (citing United Statesv. Granados, 596 F.3d 970, 975 (8th Cir. 2010) (holding outstanding warrant for arrest of potential juror is valid, race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory strike);......