United States v. Seigler

• Decision Date: 03 March 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-4491,19-4491
• Citation: 990 F.3d 331
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Kevin Thomas SEIGLER, Defendant - Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

990 F.3d 331

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.Kevin Thomas SEIGLER, Defendant - Appellant.

No. 19-4491

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: October 29, 2020

Decided: March 3, 2021

ARGUED: John Edward Davidson, DAVIDSON & KITZMANN, PLC, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. Jean Barrett Hudson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Thomas T. Cullen, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and Stephanie A. GALLAGHER, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Agee wrote the opinion, in which Judge Gallagher joined. Chief Judge Gregory wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.

AGEE, Circuit Judge:

Kevin Thomas Seigler challenges his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to manufacture, distribute, or possess with the intent to distribute controlled substances or to use a communication facility in committing and causing the facilitation of any felony controlled substance offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), (C), and (E) ; 843(d); and 846. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

Law enforcement in Virginia and Nevada coordinated an investigation into a methamphetamine and oxycodone distribution ring that shipped those controlled substances from Las Vegas to individuals in southwest Virginia for distribution throughout the community. Specifically, law enforcement learned that southwest Virginia residents Richard Kayian and Tracy Allen Callihan frequently purchased controlled substances from Las Vegas resident Stephen Cino for resale in Virginia. In mid-February 2016, as part of their investigation into the Nevada side of this venture, law enforcement obtained a 30-day warrant to wiretap Cino's cell phone.

As a result of that wiretap, law enforcement recorded two telephone conversations between Cino and a man later identified as Seigler.¹ In the first call, placed on March 8, 2016, Cino called Seigler and said, "from what I understand, it looks like it's gonna be a deuce,"² and that he'd know for sure the next morning. Cino asked if that would be enough notice to plan on meeting midday. Seigler agreed and said that he would call his contact immediately to ensure everything was ready. The next day, Cino called Seigler to confirm that he wanted "two." Seigler indicated that he was prepared to meet any time, and they discussed how long it would take for Cino to arrive at Seigler's location. Cino offered to pick up lunch, and the two men agreed that he would do so at a restaurant near Seigler called The Lodge.³

Because they knew where Cino would be before driving to what they believed to be a drug deal, law enforcement decided to conduct physical surveillance. An officer followed Cino from The Lodge to 5708 Calanas Avenue. Cino arrived at approximately 12:20 pm and entered the residence carrying the food in containers from The Lodge. He exited approximately forty-five minutes later carrying a white plastic bag that he placed in the trunk of his car. Law enforcement followed him a short distance before pulling over the vehicle. In a subsequent search, officers found the plastic bag with what they believed to be methamphetamine. Later testing verified the substance to be approximately two pounds of methamphetamine.

Thereafter, law enforcement—who had also continued surveilling the 5708 Calanas Avenue residence—obtained a search warrant for that address. In the interim, they learned that the phone number of the unidentified man on two recorded conversations was registered to Seigler, that Seigler's driver's license listed his address as 5708 Calanas Avenue, and that utilities at the address were listed in Seigler's name.

When police officers executed the warrant that same afternoon, they seized about $17,000 in the master bedroom, $280 from Seigler's person and $1,700 in a home office. They did not locate any methamphetamine, but seized several types of pills, a digital scale, plastic baggies consistent with ones used to repackage controlled substances for sale, and a Verizon cell phone bill in Seigler's name listing the phone number Cino had called. Officers also observed a small amount of marijuana, but did not seize it.

In November 2016, twenty-two individuals were indicted for conspiracy offenses in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Cino and Seigler were the only named Nevada residents; everyone else resided in southwest Virginia. Seigler was tried by himself; the other defendants pleaded guilty or went to trial in separate proceedings. Seigler was named in Count 1 only, which alleged his participation in a conspiracy to (1) manufacture, distribute, or possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, oxycodone, and buprenorphine ("the distribution objective"), and (2) use a communication facility to commit a felony controlled substance offense ("the communications facility objective").

Seigler's Virginia trial was originally set for May 2017, but he failed to appear. When law enforcement arrived at 5708 Calanas Avenue the day after Seigler had failed to appear, they observed "the defendant" jump over a wall in the back to flee from them. J.A. 343.⁴ Seigler was later apprehended and charged with one count of failure to appear, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a) and (b)(1)(A)(1). Seigler pleaded guilty to that offense, but invoked his right to a trial on the conspiracy count. He moved to suppress the recorded telephone conversations, arguing that the affidavits supporting the wiretap warrant for Cino's phone contained intentionally false and misleading representations. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.

The evidence presented at trial was relatively straightforward. Law enforcement officials testified about the investigation in southwest Virginia, obtaining the wiretap to Cino's phone, the recorded telephone conversations, and the March 9 surveillance and search warrant. The four calls were played for the jury. One Virginia coconspirator, Bradley Allen Chapman, the son-in-law of coconspirator Kayian, testified about how Kayian and Callihan would obtain shipments from Cino and then redistribute them to family and acquaintances in southwest Virginia. Chapman also testified that he would sometimes agree to wire money to individuals in Las Vegas, but that he could not remember their names and addresses. While Chapman described the southwest Virginia part of the conspiracy in some depth, he admitted that he had never met or spoken to Cino and that he was not familiar with Seigler's name and had never met or spoken to him.

The jury convicted Seigler of the charged conspiracy, noting on the special verdict form that it found the Government had proven both the distribution objective and the communications facility objective. In addition, the jury found that Seigler participated in a conspiracy involving methamphetamine (not oxycodone) and that the conspiracy involved 500 grams or more of methamphetamine.

Seigler was sentenced at the same time for both the failure-to-appear and the conspiracy convictions, so one pre-sentence report ("PSR") was prepared in advance of the sentencing hearing. After calculating the advisory Guidelines range and listening to the parties’ arguments on an appropriate sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the district court sentenced Seigler to a total of 286 months’ imprisonment.⁵

Seigler noted a timely appeal, and the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a).

II.

On appeal, Seigler raises several issues related to his conviction and sentence: (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conspiracy conviction; (2) the wording of the special verdict form; (3) the veracity of the affidavit supporting the wiretap warrant; (4) the credibility and sufficiency of the testimony supporting the drug-weight finding used to calculate his Sentencing Guidelines range; and (5) the imposition of an offense-level enhancement for obstruction of justice. We address each argument in turn.⁶

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The indictment alleged a multi-object conspiracy, meaning that the Government alleged one conspiracy count that could be based on either of the two charged unlawful objectives: distribution or use of a communications facility. Seigler's first challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the distribution objective.⁷ To prove that offense, the Government was required to show (1) an agreement between two or more persons to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine; (2) Seigler's knowledge of the conspiracy; and (3) Seigler's knowing and voluntary participation in the conspiracy. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Seigler does not contest that the Government satisfied its burden as to the first element, i.e., that it proved the existence of a conspiracy between Cino and individuals in southwest Virginia. Rather, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove his knowledge of and participation in that conspiracy.

Given the clandestine nature of distribution conspiracies, we have long recognized that they are usually proven "inferentially and by circumstantial evidence." United States v. Hickman , 626 F.3d 756, 763 (4th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). To prove a specific defendant's connection to a proven conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, "the Government need not prove that the defendant knew the particulars of the conspiracy or all of his coconspirators." Burgos, 94 F.3d at 858. It is sufficient if the defendant "joins the conspiracy with an understanding of the unlawful nature [of it] and willfully joins in the plan on one occasion" even if he lacks an understanding of its scope or its details. Id. (citation omitted). In fact, ...