United States v. Lopez
| Decision Date | 24 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13-40203,13-40203 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JESUS GREGORIO LOPEZ, also known as Goyo; ROBERTO GARZA; RAMON ZAMORA, Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
*
Defendants-Appellants Jesus Gregorio Lopez ("Lopez"), Roberto Garza ("Garza"), and Ramon Zamora ("Zamora") were indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kg of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)(A), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. After a jury trial, all three were convicted and received lengthy prison sentences. On appeal, Lopez, Garza, and Zamora allege a variety of errors were committed at trial. Inaddition, Garza and Zamora challenge their sentences. After careful review of the record and relevant case law, we affirm their convictions and sentences.
This appeal concerns a conspiracy to smuggle large quantities of marijuana from Mexico into the United States, involving at least a dozen individuals, from 2003 to 2012. At trial, the Government primarily relied on testimony from the following individuals, all of whom admitted to being involved in the drug conspiracy: Jesus Marroquin; Ronny Rice; Edward David Mata; Richard Patton; Servando Guerra; Luis Andreas Longoria; Jose Maria Carbajal, Jr.; Rene Salazar, Jr.; Jose Figueroa; and Adrian de la Garza. The Government also offered testimony from numerous law enforcement officials involved in investigating the conspiracy.
Jose Maria Carbajal, Jr. ("Carbajal") began trafficking marijuana in the mid-to-late 1980s. Initially, he carried 20-pound loads of marijuana in backpacks through Encino and Falfurrias. Carbajal later met another supplier and began moving larger loads of approximately 150 to 200 pounds. Carbajal and his associates, Edward Mata ("Mata") and Richard Patton ("Patton"), used ATVs and night-vision goggles to trespass through ranches near the Falfurrias Border Patrol Station to smuggle the marijuana past the checkpoint.
Sometime around 2005, Lopez learned of Carbajal's operation, and he approached Carbajal to offer Carbajal the use of his ranch, Las Carolina Ranch ("Carolina"). Before beginning their working relationship, Lopez asked Carbajal to pass a test: he wanted Carbajal to move some marijuana belongingto Damien Solis, a drug trafficker, through Lopez's ranch past the Falfurrias Border Patrol Station. Carbajal passed the test, and he introduced Jesus Marroquin ("Marroquin") to Lopez. Carbajal told Lopez that he and Marroquin would begin using Carolina. For the next seven years, Marroquin and Carbajal moved loads of marijuana through ranches including Carolina, transporting more than 25,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States.
In 2006, Lopez asked Carbajal to come to a meeting with Garza. Garza had been trafficking in marijuana since at least 2004, using an employee, Ronny Rice ("Rice"), to drive shipments into the United States. Soon after the meeting between Lopez, Carbajal, and Garza, Garza's brother, Alex Garza, began delivering shipments to Carolina. According to Carbajal's trial testimony, "[t]hat's where the big quantities started coming in." The Garzas and other distributors dropped off 500-to-1,500-pound loads of marijuana at Carolina. Phone records revealed that Lopez was in frequent contact with Carbajal and Garza. As the operation grew, Lopez decided to build an outhouse with a false bottom on his ranch for the smugglers to conceal the marijuana. The outhouse could hold between 1,000 and 1,500 pounds of marijuana.
Carbajal also used other ranches in addition to Carolina. He formed a relationship with Zamora, who was employed at Baluarte Ranch, which was also near the Falfurrias checkpoint.2 Zamora helped Carbajal and two of Carbajal's associates to get jobs at Baluarte Ranch. Carbajal and others then began smuggling marijuana through Baluarte Ranch; Zamora would help them gain access the ranch and provided them places to store the marijuana. They stored marijuana at Baluarte Ranch as often as two to three times a week for three years and at least fifty times. Zamora also served as a lookout againstlaw enforcement officers. The conspiracy entered its most successful phase once Zamora started working with Carbajal.
While investigating the conspiracy, the Government seized marijuana on a number of occasions between 2003 and 2012. They recovered marijuana from a number of Carbajal's employees, Ronny Rice, and from Carbajal and Garza themselves. Among the largest amounts recovered were 3,000 pounds from Garza's home, 2,000 pounds hidden in a truck Patton had abandoned, and 1,400 pounds from a trailer.
Carbajal was arrested in early 2011. Law enforcement officials had begun to suspect Lopez's involvement in the conspiracy, and they interviewed him after Carbajal was arrested. They later returned to his ranch to execute a search warrant, and they discovered an illegal alien, Marvin Ruiz ("Ruiz"), whom Lopez employed as a ranch hand. Lopez was charged with harboring an illegal alien. When the Government interviewed Ruiz, he told them that he did not have any knowledge of illegal activity at the ranch. The parties dispute when Lopez was made aware of this statement. See infra subpart III(D)(2). Lopez agreed to allow the Government to release Ruiz from custody and remove him from the United States before Lopez's conspiracy trial.
In 2012, Lopez, Zamora, Garza, and nine coconspirators were indicted for conspiracy with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kg of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. Lopez, Zamora, and Garza went to trial, and the jury found all three guilty. Lopez was sentenced to 292 months' imprisonment with 5 years of supervised release. Zamora was sentenced to 360 months in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. Garza was sentenced to life in prison to be followed by 10 years of supervised release.
The district court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742.
Lopez, Garza, and Zamora each raise a number of issues on appeal. We address these issues in the following order. First, Zamora argues the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence. Second, both Zamora and Lopez challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting their convictions. Third, Garza argues there was a material variance between the charge in the indictment and the evidence at trial. Fourth, Lopez claims the Government committed a Brady violation because it failed to timely disclose exculpatory evidence. Finally, both Garza and Zamora argue that the district court erred in calculating their sentences. We address each issue in turn.
When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, this Court reviews "factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions regarding the sufficiency of the warrant or the reasonableness of an officer's reliance on a warrant de novo." United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 834 (5th Cir. 2010). We "view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, in this case, the United States." Id.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment, this Court conduct an alternative test. United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352, 357 (5th Cir. 2005). First, we consider whether the good-faith exception applies, that is, whether "the officer executing the warrant relied on it in good faith." Id. "For the good-faith exception to apply, the executing-officer's reliance on the issuing-judge's probable-causedetermination and the technical sufficiency of the warrant must have been objectively reasonable." Id. at 358. A warrant will ordinarily establish good faith on the part of the officer executing the warrant. United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1988). But the warrant will not establish good faith if the affidavit supporting the warrant is bare bones, meaning it is "so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render belief in its existence entirely unreasonable." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If the good-faith exception applies, the inquiry ends; if this Court does not find good faith, we will next consider "whether the warrant was supported by probable cause." Gibbs, 421 F.3d at 357 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even if both of these tests are met, this Court still applies a harmless error analysis, which asks "whether the trier of fact would have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt [if the evidence had been suppressed]." United States v. Willingham, 310 F.3d 367, 372 (5th Cir. 2002) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Zamora argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the search warrant used to search his house listed the wrong address.3 He points out that the search warrant authorized the search of 2932 Fernando Salinas, Rio Grande City, Texas, but that the address of his home and the house the agents actually searched is 2930 Fernando Salinas, Rio Grande City, Texas. Zamora claims that because of the incorrect address, the warrant did not give the officers a basis for searching any residence other than 2932 Fernando Salinas. He also claims the good-faith exception does not applybecause the affidavit failed to state probable cause for the agents to search 2930 Fernando Salinas. The Government responds that "[t]he district court's findings of fact, which were based on testimony offered at the suppression hearing, establish both the validity of the warrant and the agents'...
To continue reading
Request your trial