United States v. Garcia, 091012 FED5, 11-50906
| Opinion Judge | PER CURIAM. |
| Party Name | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JUAN L. GARCIA, also known as Juan Garcia, Defendant-Appellant |
| Judge Panel | Before BARKSDALE, CLEMENT, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. |
| Case Date | September 10, 2012 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:10-CR-708-2.
A jury convicted Juan L. Garcia of: conspiring to possess, with intent to distribute, one kilogram or more of heroin; possessing, with intent to distribute, one kilogram or more of heroin; and carrying a firearm during, and in relation to, a drug-trafficking crime. He was sentenced, inter alia, to 211-months' imprisonment. Garcia, who testified at trial, raises numerous issues regarding his convictions. Each lacks merit.
Garcia first contends the Government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he carried a firearm during, and in relation to, a drug-trafficking crime. Because Garcia moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the Government's case and at the close of all the evidence, this sufficiency-of-the-evidence contention is reviewed de novo. E.g., United States v. Mudekunye, 646 F.3d 281, 285 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the verdict will be upheld if a reasonable juror could conclude from the evidence that the Government established all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Along that line, the evidence is viewed, and all reasonable inferences drawn, in the light most favorable to the verdict. Id.
To establish guilt, the Government was required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Garcia: (1) committed a drug-trafficking crime; and (2) knowingly carried a firearm, (3) during, and in relation to, that crime. E.g., United States v. Franklin, 561 F.3d 398, 402 (5th Cir. 2009). Garcia contests the second and third elements.
Regarding the second element, trial evidence established that, after Garcia was stopped for committing traffic violations, police officers found a handgun in the center console of his vehicle. They also found thousands of dollars in cash, which Garcia admitted belonged to him. Some of the cash was found in the center console along with the firearm, which suggests Garcia knew the firearm was in the vehicle and it was not placed there without his knowledge, as he maintains on appeal. Moreover, a police officer testified that, when Garcia was stopped, he was sweating and glanced suspiciously at the console. Thus, a reasonable juror could have found Garcia knowingly carried the firearm.
In order to satisfy the "in relation to" (third) element, the Government must prove the firearm had "some purpose or effect with respect to the drug trafficking crime"; the presence of the firearm "cannot be the result of accident or coincidence". United States v. Smith, 481 F.3d 259, 264 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Government need not prove defendant actively used the firearm, but it must put forward "evidence that the firearm was available to provide protection to . . . defendant in connection with his engagement in drug trafficking". Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Trial evidence showed Garcia regularly sold significant quantities of heroin and handled substantial amounts of cash—approximately $11, 000 for a typical ten-ounce sale. The handgun was readily accessible to Garcia in the center console. Officers found a magazine and ammunition along with the firearm; and a reasonable juror could have inferred that it was loaded, or at the very least that Garcia could have loaded it quickly and easily, based on a photograph taken at the time it was found. The Government presented evidence, including testimony of one of Garcia's customers, from which a reasonable juror could have found that the large amount of cash represented the proceeds of drug sales. Moreover, the Government presented evidence that Garcia, using his vehicle, participated in a drug transaction on the day the firearm was found. Accordingly, a reasonable juror could have found that Garcia carried the firearm during, and in relation to, a drug-trafficking crime.
Garcia contends for the first time in his reply brief that his customer's testimony was unreliable and should be disregarded. Garcia did not object to that testimony at trial and, as noted, did not raise this issue in his opening brief. "For obvious reasons, our court generally will not consider an issue raised for the first time in a reply brief." United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360 (5th Cir. 2010).
Garcia next contends the district court improperly admitted into evidence a report of data files stored on one of his cellular telephones. Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, but a harmless error will not be reversed. E.g., United States v. Jackson, 636 F.3d 687, 692 (5th Cir. 2011); Fed.R.Evid. 103(a). Even if the admission of this evidence was erroneous, the error would not warrant reversal because it was harmless. The other evidence against Garcia was strong: the customer testified to the multitude of drug deals in which Garcia engaged; police officers testified about the firearm and large sums of cash found in Garcia's vehicle; the testimony of both the customer and the officers, along with other evidence, could have led a reasonable juror to determine that Garcia participated in a drug transaction at a motel on the day of his arrest; and a bulletproof vest and a page from a drug ledger were found in Garcia's home. In the light of this evidence, the contents of Garcia's cellular...
To continue reading
Request your trial