United States v. Hester

• Decision Date: 08 June 2022
• Docket Number: 21-40253
• Parties: United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyton Hester, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Tyton Hester, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-40253

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

June 8, 2022

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CR-85-1

Before Stewart, Clement, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM ^[*]

Tyton Hester was one of several defendants charged in a multi-agency effort to prevent the movement of illegal narcotics from Mexico. After a first trial resulted in a hung jury, he was convicted following a second trial on counts for drug conspiracy, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and felon in possession of a firearm. Based on his criminal

1

history, the district court sentenced Hester within the guidelines range to life imprisonment on count one and 120 months on count three, to be served concurrently, and 60 months on count two, to be served consecutively.

On appeal, Hester disputes the sufficiency of the evidence on all three counts, argues that the evidence seized from two locations should have been suppressed, and challenges five different guidelines issues. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

The parties dispute Hester's role in the broader drug conspiracy but agree on many facts related to his involvement. Namely, Hester bought methamphetamine from Roel Astran in Dallas that he would sell with others at his auto shop in Sherman, Mobile MechanicXX. Hester appears to have been Astran's only customer. Astran received methamphetamine from Jesus Ordaz and Christian and Daniel Mendoza. Ordaz received methamphetamine from the Mendozas and Jesus Davila Hernandez. Davila had primary sources of supply in Mexico.

According to the Government, Hester would drive to Dallas, pick up Astran at a motel or on the street, and head to a stash house. After receiving money from Hester, Astran would go inside, buy drugs, and provide them to Hester, who would bring them back to Mobile MechanicXX or to the apartment that he shared with his common-law wife. At Mobile MechanicXX, the drugs were reallocated for further distribution and placed in safes to sell. Footage seized from surveillance cameras that Hester had an associate install on the premises shows Hester and others breaking drugs down, selling bags, recording transactions in ledgers, and inserting and removing drugs and cash from the safes. The Government contends that these individuals were Hester's "workers," but Hester maintains that "[e]ach acted effectively as independent contractors, not subordinates."

2

The Sherman Police Department had received information indicating that Hester was a drug dealer. Surveillance it carried out at Mobile MechanicXX revealed come-and-go traffic, with people not staying long and conducting transactions in the parking lot and through car windows. Pursuant to warrants approved by a state magistrate, officers searched Hester's auto shop and apartment. At Mobile MechanicXX, they found, among other items, a lockbox with several bags of methamphetamine totaling 35.65 grams, a shotgun engraved with Hester's initials, GPS trackers, drug ledgers, ammunition, a methamphetamine pipe, a marijuana pipe, rifle and handgun cartridges, digital scales, safes, and the DVR from the security cameras that Hester had installed. Meanwhile, at his apartment, they found a loaded semi-automatic pistol, a semi-automatic handgun, drug ledgers, digital scales, body armor, and a bag containing 343.6 grams of methamphetamine.

A grand jury charged Hester and seven co-defendants in a second superseding indictment with conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 846 (count one). It also charged Hester with possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (count two) and felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (count three). Hester filed a motion to suppress evidence retrieved during the search of his apartment, alleging that the officers lacked probable cause. The district court denied the motion because it was untimely and, in any case, the warrant would have been supported by probable cause and fallen under the good faith exception. Hester's first trial lasted approximately two weeks and resulted in a conviction on count three and a hung jury on counts one and two. His second trial lasted six days and resulted in a conviction on the two remaining counts. Notably, in the second trial, the Government introduced the video

3

footage of illicit activity in Hester's auto shop that was captured by his own surveillance cameras.

Following his conviction, the probation office prepared a pre-sentence report ("PSR"). Hester's base offense level, 34, was increased through a series of sentencing enhancements and ended up at the guidelines maximum, 43. Since his criminal history category was V, this resulted in a guidelines imprisonment range of life imprisonment. The district court ultimately sentenced Hester to life imprisonment on count one and 120 months on count three, to be served concurrently, and 60 months on count two, to be served consecutively.

Hester timely appealed, (1) disputing the sufficiency of the evidence on all three counts, (2) arguing that the evidence seized from both his apartment and auto shop should have been suppressed, and (3) challenging five different guidelines issues: the amount of drugs attributed to Hester in calculating his base offense level and the sentencing enhancements for obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, importation under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(5), maintaining a premises for distribution under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(12), and serving as an organizer of a drug distribution enterprise under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a).

II. Discussion

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

This court gives "substantial deference to the jury verdict," United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 330 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc), viewing all evidence and making all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to it. United States v. Rodriguez, 260 F.3d 416, 423 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus, we affirm the verdict unless no rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Beacham, 774 F.3d 267, 272 (5th Cir. 2014).

4

On appeal, Hester argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for the drug and firearms counts. However, he "faces an imposing standard of review" that he cannot overcome. United States v. Parekh, 926 F.2d 402, 405 (5th Cir. 1991).

i. Count 1: Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute

In order to convict a defendant of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. § 846, there must be "proof of (1) an agreement between two or more persons to violate the narcotics laws, (2) the defendant's knowledge of the agreement, and (3) the defendant's voluntary participation in the conspiracy." United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406, 409 (5th Cir. 2003).

According to Hester, the evidence introduced is insufficient to satisfy each element because the Government relies heavily on "speculation, conjecture[, ] and unreliable witnesses." He emphasizes that the officers found no drugs, guns, or "evidence of high living" on him when he was arrested; that cooperating and testifying defendants had incentives to exaggerate and fabricate against him; that he does not speak Spanish and never had conversations with anyone in Mexico; and that the first jury hung on this charge. However, such facts do not indicate that Hester did not satisfy the elements of conspiracy based on his dealings in Sherman. The Government produced ample evidence that could support his conviction, including copious testimony reflecting that Hester agreed with two or more persons to distribute methamphetamine, surveillance footage showing him participating with two or more persons to distribute methamphetamine, and the fruits of the searches of his auto shop and apartment. He has failed to demonstrate that no rational jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

5

ii. Count 2: Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of Drug Trafficking

A conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) requires both (1) the commission of a drug offense and (2) the defendant's knowing possession of a firearm in furtherance of that offense. See United States v. Montes, 602 F.3d 381, 386 (5th Cir. 2010).

Hester contends that his conviction rests on the existence of three weapons and that there is no evidence that he used them to protect drugs or proceeds. Specifically, he argues that the shotgun found at Mobile MechanicXX was simply stored there as a means of protecting the auto shop from intruders, and that the two guns found in his apartment were weapons for his wife's personal protection. However, the fact that there were drug ledgers found by the loaded pistol in his home office undercuts his defense, as does the surveillance footage capturing Hester at Mobile MechanicXX in possession of one of the...