United States v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 11 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20-6156,20-6181 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Katharine E. Matthews (20-6156); Robert Earl Wallace (20-6181), Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington. No. 5:17-cr-00118-Karen K Caldwell, District Judge.
ON BRIEF:
Eric G. Eckes, PINALES STACHLER YOUNG BURRELL, L.P.A., Cincinnati Ohio, William R. Gallagher, Elizabeth Conkin, ARENSTEIN & GALLAGHER, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant in 20-6156.
Steven R. Jaeger, THE JAEGER FIRM PLLC, Erlanger, Kentucky, for Appellant in 20-6181.
Javier A. Sinha, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington D.C., Charles P. Wisdom, Jr., Roger West, William P. Moynahan, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellee.
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, STRANCH, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
When Robert Carlson stopped selling computer systems and started running drugs, he persuaded some of his friends to help. Between March 2014 and April 2017, together they trafficked about 1, 680 kilograms of cocaine, 2, 050 pounds of marijuana, and 40 pounds of methamphetamine-and between $500 million and $1 billion of cash in drug proceeds-for the Sinaloa Mexican drug cartel. The gig ended when Carlson got caught and turned in his co-conspirators, including both appellants here, Katharine E. Matthews and Robert Earl Wallace.
Matthews was convicted on three conspiracy counts (two for drug distribution, one for money laundering) following a lengthy jury trial. She raises a variety of arguments now: whether her convictions were based on sufficient evidence; whether the district court erred in providing a deliberate-ignorance jury instruction; whether her confrontation rights were violated after the court allowed Carlson to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination as to certain questions on cross-examination; and whether she was prejudiced by a variance between the indictment and proof at trial on Count 1 (conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine). Wallace pleaded guilty to Count 1 and received a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months' imprisonment, which he argues is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Because their arguments lack merit, we affirm.
Carlson's scheme was straight-forward: he and his co-conspirators were couriers for the Sinaloa Mexican drug cartel, trafficking drugs and drug proceeds on private airplanes between California and cities throughout the United States. Cartel members would deliver the drugs in California to Carlson, Matthews, or others. The cartel packaged the cocaine in plastic-wrapped bundles. Matthews or others counted those bundles, packed them into suitcases, and then loaded the suitcases onto a private plane that they had chartered, which flew across the country with Carlson, Matthews, or others in tow. After reaching their destination, they unloaded the drugs from the plane and delivered them to cartel members.
Although cocaine was the primary drug that Carlson trafficked, he also trafficked marijuana and, for a short time toward the end of the scheme, methamphetamine. A "typical" trip moved about 80 to 120 kilograms of cocaine. Only two flights carried methamphetamine, but both of those flights also carried cocaine.
Aside from the drugs, the cartel also tasked Carlson and his friends with bringing cash drug proceeds back to California on their return flights. Like the cocaine, the cartel packaged its cash in plastic-wrapped bundles, which obscured what was inside-although, according to Carlson, the bundles still appeared to contain "some colored, sort of blue-green paper that looked like currency." Carlson, Matthews, or others would then count the number of cash bundles. If Carlson wasn't there, whoever was-including Matthews, on several occasions-would also send a picture of the bundles to Carlson to ensure they had "an accurate count . . . so [they] wouldn't be responsible if it was short." They would then pack the cash bundles into suitcases, load them onto the plane, return to California, and deliver the cash proceeds to the cartel.
The cartel then paid Carlson for his services. He would use that money to cover the conspiracy's expenses-hotel rooms, chartered planes, and aircraft fuel. Carlson's co- conspirators would also get a cut, an amount that "depend[ed] on their role." Because Carlson and Matthews were "partner[s]" in the drug-trafficking scheme, he paid her "usually at least $5, 000 a trip, minimum," and Carlson would keep "at least that much" for himself. Matthews ultimately made over $100, 000 through the conspiracy. Co-conspirators with a less substantial role-e.g., those whom Carlson asked "to come on the plane to make it look like we were a group of people traveling with luggage"-would receive less, "typically" $2, 000 to $3, 500 per trip.
The law eventually caught up to Carlson, and he turned in his co-conspirators. A grand jury in the Eastern District of Kentucky returned a superseding indictment against seven defendants: Robert Chipperfield, Jr., Torrey Ward, David Arthur Corona Diaz, Kendra Michelle Caprice Talley, and Nader Sarkhosh, as well as the two appellants here, Matthews and Wallace.[1]The three-count indictment charged all seven defendants with conspiracy to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) (Count 1); conspiracy to distribute 1, 000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) (Count 2); and conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 3).
Matthews was tried alongside Chipperfield, Ward, and Sarkhosh-three pilots who, like Wallace, flew trips for Carlson. The ensuing multi-week jury trial featured the testimony of, among others, Carlson (including three days of his cross-examination) and co-conspirator Cedric Fajardo, as well as reams of text messages, photos, and banking records created during the scheme.
Matthews testified in her own defense, arguing that she never knew Carlson was trafficking drugs and therefore did not knowingly join the conspiracy. The government presented text messages between her and Carlson that, although at times cryptic, tended to show otherwise-especially after Carlson explained their meaning. Over the defendants' objections, the district court instructed the jury about how the government may prove knowledge through a defendant's deliberate ignorance-an instruction that was based verbatim on this court's pattern instruction. See Sixth Circuit Pattern Crim. Jury Instructions 2.09 (2021).
The jury convicted Matthews on all three counts-although it found, as to Count 1, that no quantity of methamphetamine trafficked during the conspiracy was directly attributable to Matthews. It acquitted the three pilots on all counts.
Following the verdict, Matthews moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts and for a new trial. She argued that insufficient evidence supported her convictions, that the government failed to prove venue for Count 2 (conspiracy to distribute marijuana), and that there was a variance between her indictment and the proof at trial. Her new-trial motion argued that her convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence. The district court granted in part the motion for acquittal, finding that the government failed to prove venue for Count 2. It otherwise denied that motion and the motion for a new trial.
For his part, Wallace-who was one of Carlson's pilots on several trafficking trips- pleaded guilty to Count 1 in exchange for the dismissal of Counts 2 and 3; the district court gave him a below-Guidelines sentence of 60 months' imprisonment, followed by five years' supervised release. Both Matthews and Wallace timely appealed. We address Matthews's challenges to her convictions first, then turn to Wallace's appeal of his sentence.
Matthews argues that the court erred in denying her post-verdict motion for judgment of acquittal because her convictions for Counts 1 (conspiracy to distribute cocaine and methamphetamine) and 3 (conspiracy to commit money laundering) were based on insufficient evidence. She likewise argues the court erred in not granting a new trial because her convictions were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
We review the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal de novo, United States v. Collins, 799 F.3d 554, 589 (6th Cir. 2015), "draw[ing] all reasonable inferences, including inferences from circumstantial evidence, in favor of the government," United States v. Acosta, 924 F.3d 288, 296-97 (6th Cir. 2019). A conviction is based on sufficient evidence if, "after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).
Start with the elements of conviction for Count 1. To prove a drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), the government must prove "(1) an agreement to violate the drug laws, and (2) each conspirator's knowledge of, intent to join, and participation in the conspiracy." United States v. Crozier, 259 F.3d 503, 517 (6th Cir. 2001). Matthews takes aim at the second element-arguing the government failed to prove that she "had knowledge of and intended to join the conspiracy alleged in Count 1."
There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Matthews knew of and intended to join the conspiracy. The government sought to prove its case...
To continue reading
Request your trial