U.S. v. Windrix
| Decision Date | 03 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-5016.,No. 04-5021.,No. 04-5020.,04-5016.,04-5020.,04-5021. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Morgan Earl WINDRIX, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David Alan Westcott, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Arnold Mook, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Michael G. McGuire, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellant Windrix.
Kevin Danielson, Assistant United States Attorney (David E. O'Meilia, United States Attorney, with him on the briefs), Tulsa, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Art Fleak, Tulsa, OK, for Defendant-Appellant Westcott.
Shannon L. Henson, Assistant United States Attorney (David E. O'Meilia, United States Attorney, and Kevin Danielson, Assistant United States Attorney, on the briefs), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Stanley D. Monroe, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellant Mook.
Shannon L. Henson, Assistant United States Attorney (David E. O'Meilia, United States Attorney, and Kevin Danielson, Assistant United States Attorney, on the briefs), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Before BRISCOE, HOLLOWAY, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
These consolidated cases arise from the trial of three participants in a conspiracy to manufacture and sell methamphetamine. Defendants Morgan Earl Windrix, Charles Arnold Mook, and David Alan Westcott were each convicted of conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and possessing equipment and chemicals for methamphetamine manufacturing, 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6). Windrix, the conspiracy's leader, was further convicted on two counts of possessing methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C. § 843, and maintaining a drug house, 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), (b); Mook was further convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2).
Each Defendant appeals the judgment on a number of grounds. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the convictions but remand for resentencing in light of United States v. Booker, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
In July 1999 Windrix bought a fenced 10-acre hill property in Osage County, Oklahoma, on which he resided in a double-wide mobile home. Westcott, with his former wife Karen Heim, moved onto the property at Windrix's invitation, living in a single-wide mobile home. Mook, Windrix's nephew, occasionally lived on the hill, but also maintained houses on South Xanthus and North Garrison Place in Tulsa.
Between 1999 and 2002 Windrix, Westcott, Mook, and others manufactured and distributed methamphetamine using Windrix's hill as their base. Windrix arranged methamphetamine-manufacturing sessions (cooks) at least twice a week and supervised the procurement of ingredients for these cooks. Westcott assisted during the cooks, purchased and produced ingredients, and destroyed evidence of the cooks. Mook assisted during the cooks and kept methamphetamine, business records, firearms, and ammunition in his South Xanthus and North Garrison Place houses.
On appeal Windrix contends that (1) the district court incorrectly failed to suppress evidence discovered during a May 10, 2002, traffic stop; (2) the Government proved multiple conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy with which he was charged; and (3) the district court incorrectly applied the Sentencing Guidelines by miscalculating drug quantities and imposing upward adjustments for firearm possession and for leading a criminal group of five or more.
Westcott contends that (1) the district court incorrectly failed to suppress evidence discovered during a February 6, 2001, search of his mobile home on the hill; (2) the government proved multiple conspiracies rather than the charged conspiracy; (3) the district court abused its discretion by refusing to sever his trial from that of the other defendants; (4) the jury pool was not a fair cross-section of the community; (5) the district court misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines by attributing to him quantities of methamphetamine that flowed through the conspiracy but that he could not have reasonably been expected to foresee; and (6) the Government failed to prove for sentencing purposes that the quantities of methamphetamine attributed to him were pure methamphetamine rather than a mixture.
Mook contends that (1) the district court incorrectly failed to suppress evidence discovered in the February 6, 2001, search of the hill, the two September 23 searches of his residence, and the September 24 search of his storage lockers; (2) the Government proved multiple conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy with which it charged him; and (3) the district court incorrectly applied the Sentencing Guidelines by attributing to him quantities of methamphetamine that flowed through the conspiracy but that he could not have reasonably been expected to foresee.
All three also challenge their sentences under Booker.
Police officers conducted a number of searches during their investigation of the conspiracy. Defendants challenge several of them on appeal.
On February 6, 2001, officers executed a search warrant of the Windrix property. The search included both trailers (Windrix's and Westcott's) on the hill. Officers discovered methamphetamine, ingredients and equipment for preparing methamphetamine, marijuana, several firearms, video surveillance equipment, a ballistic vest, night-vision scopes, walkie-talkies, a radio scanner, and large amounts of currency.
On May 15, 2001, another warrant was executed, this time for Mook's South Xanthus house. Officers discovered marijuana, a firearm, scales, syringes, gloves, methamphetamine pipes, receipts for methamphetamine-manufacturing ingredients and equipment, and large amounts of currency. A year later officers obtained further evidence — methamphetamine, ingredients, and a videotape of Windrix at a cook — in a May 10, 2002, search of Windrix's car after a traffic stop.
This prolonged investigation resulted in a September 6, 2002, indictment charging Defendants with conspiracy. On September 23, relying in part on the indictment, officers obtained and executed a warrant to search Mook's North Garrison house for documentary evidence of the conspiracy, and, after a fruitful search, a second warrant to search the house for methamphetamine-manufacturing equipment and other nondocumentary evidence. The North Garrison searches yielded financial records, bottles, filters, scales, smoking devices, marijuana, firearms, ammunition, and large amounts of currency. During the first search, officers discovered a storage-locker receipt; they then obtained a warrant to search the storage locker, which they executed the following day. They found firearms, ammunition, paperwork, scales, glassware, plastic tubing, and a chemistry textbook.
We proceed to address the challenges to these searches. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government and accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous, but review the ultimate question of Fourth Amendment reasonableness de novo. See United States v. Kimoana, 383 F.3d 1215, 1220 (10th Cir.2004).
In January 2001 police officers obtained a search warrant for the hill. The warrant authorized the search to encompass "the dwelling, all outbuildings, vehicles and persons which may be found thereat." After providing directions to the property and stating that one enters the property on a road passing "through two rock pillars and [a]cross a cattle guard," the warrant described the property as follows:
There is a white with brown trim mobile home setting in a north/south direction on the East Side of the entrance road. There is a white colored mobile home setting in an east/west direction, south of that location. There are numerous outbuildings on the property, and there are numerous junk vehicles lined up on the west side of the entrance road.
On February 6, 2001, police officers executed the warrant, searching both mobile homes. Between the time the warrant was obtained and the time of the search, officers had been informed that Westcott occupied the second trailer. Westcott contends that the search was overbroad because officers did not have probable cause to search his home. We disagree.
In the affidavit supporting the warrant, investigator Mark Shea described the structures on the hill as including "a white with brown trim mobile home setting in a north/south direction on the East Side of the entrance road [,] ... a white colored mobile home setting in an east/west direction, south of that location[,] ... numerous outbuildings ..., and... numerous junk vehicles...." Search Warrant Affidavit at 1. The affidavit recounted Osage Nation police officer Dave Hinman's interview with criminal-turned-informant Ricky Devon McDoulett on December 19, 2000. In the interview McDoulett told Hinman that Windrix, whom he identified by a photograph, lived in one of the two mobile homes, had provided methamphetamine to him in exchange for work on cars, had a methamphetamine laboratory in the back bedroom of his residence, had cooked methamphetamine many times in McDoulett's presence, and had cooked methamphetamine with two unidentified males and an unidentified female all night on the day before the interview. McDoulett said that he had known Windrix for 15 to 20 years and that Windrix had been dealing large amounts of methamphetamine for 10 years. McDoulett also said that Windrix had traded guns for methamphetamine, used wire detectors to scan people for transmitters or recorders, and used other persons to provide security during cooks. The same day as the Hinman interview McDoulett...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Anthony
...the conspiracy proved at Anthony’s trial varied from the conspiracy charged in the superseding indictment. See United States v. Windrix , 405 F.3d 1146, 1153 (10th Cir. 2005). At a minimum, the evidence proved that for three weeks in October 2014, Maurice and Gum conspired to operate a pros......
-
Williams v. Trammell
...as well. But Williams did not raise this argument in his habeas petition, so we do not address it here. See United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1156 (10th Cir.2005) (declining to address a claim petitioner did not raise before district court).6 For the first time on appeal, Williams ar......
-
United States v. Murry
...from the evidence adduced at trial." United States v. Hall, 473 F.3d 1295, 1305 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1153 (10th Cir. 2005) ). A conspiracy requires a "shared, single criminal objective, not just similar or parallel objectives between similarly si......
-
United States v. Hill
...can be prejudicial by either failing to put the defendant on sufficient notice of the charges against him, United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1154 (10th Cir.2005), or by causing the jury to determine the defendant's guilt by relying on evidence presented against other defendants who w......
-
Federal criminal conspiracy.
...had existed, appellant did not prove he was substantially prejudiced by the evidence introduced at trial); United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1153-54 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining that first the court must determine if there is a material variance and second whether that variance subst......
-
Table of Cases
...United States v., 306 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2002) 216 Wilson, United States v., 953 F.2d 116 (4th Cir. 1991) 136 Windrix, United States v., 405 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2005) 44 Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1978) 100, 157, 219 Winston, United States v., 444 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2006) 216 Witherspoo......
-
Chapter 2. Traffic Detentions
...in the vehicle, presence of a cell phone not belonging to the vehicle occu-pants, or two-way radio in the car. United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146 (10th Cir. 2005) (court relied on officer’s statement that drug traffickers often use multiple cell phones to find probable cause for warran......
-
Federal criminal conspiracy.
...had existed, appellant did not prove he was substantially prejudiced by the evidence introduced at trial); United States v. Windrix, 405 F.3d 1146, 1153-54 (10th Cir. 2005) (explaining that first the court must determine if there is a material variance and second whether that variance subst......