US v. Manuel Garcia

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00253-TDS-3. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999179333]. [12-4420, 12-4783]

Appeal: 12-4420

Doc: 69

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 7

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4420

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MANUEL CAMACHO GARCIA, a/k/a Meno,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-4783

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY LEON STREET, a/k/a Supreme,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:11-cr-00253-TDS-3; 1:11-cr-00253-TDS-7)

Submitted:

August 15, 2013

Decided:

August 23, 2013

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Appeal: 12-4420

Doc: 69

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 7

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anne M. Hayes, Cary, North Carolina; James B. Craven, III,
Durham, North Carolina, for Appellants. Ripley Rand, United
States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 12-4420

Doc: 69

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 3 of 7

PER CURIAM:
A
conspiracy

federal
to

jury

distribute

convicted
cocaine,

Manuel
in

Camacho

violation

Garcia

of

21

of

U.S.C.

§ 846 (2006), and convicted Timothy Leon Street of conspiracy to
distribute
§ 846.

cocaine

and

marijuana,

in

violation

of

21

U.S.C.

The district court sentenced Garcia to 140 months of

imprisonment,

and

sentenced

Street

imprisonment, and they now appeal.
Garcia

argues

on

to

245

months

of

Finding no error, we affirm.

appeal

that

the

evidence

was

insufficient to support his conviction because the Government
failed

to

demonstrate

conspiracy.

that

he

knowingly

joined

in

the

We review a district court’s decision to deny a

Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo.
United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006).

A

defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a
heavy burden.

United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067

(4th Cir. 1997).
viewing

the

The verdict of a jury must be sustained “if,

evidence

prosecution,

the

evidence.’”

Smith,

in

verdict
451

the

light

is
F.3d

most

favorable

supported
at

216

by

to

the

‘substantial

(citations

omitted).

Substantial evidence is “evidence that a reasonable finder of
fact

could

accept

as

adequate

and

sufficient

to

support

a

conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id.

(internal

quotation

marks
3

and

citation

omitted).

Appeal: 12-4420

Doc: 69

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 4 of 7

Furthermore, “[t]he jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the
credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the
evidence
quotation

presented.”
marks

and

Beidler,
citation

110

F.3d

omitted).

at

1067

(internal

“Reversal

for

insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case where the
prosecution’s failure is clear.”

Id. (internal quotation marks

and citation omitted).
In order to prove that Garcia conspired to distribute
cocaine, the Government needed to show (1) an agreement between
two or more persons, (2) that Garcia knew of the agreement, and
(3) that Garcia knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy.
United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en
banc)

(citations

omitted).

However,

the

Government

required to make this showing through direct evidence.

was

not

In fact,

“a conspiracy may be proved wholly by circumstantial evidence,”
and therefore may be inferred from the circumstances presented
at trial.

Id. at 858.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record

and conclude that the Government provided sufficient evidence
from which the jury could conclude that Garcia was guilty of the
conspiracy charge.
Street argues on appeal that the district court erred
in admitting the transcripts of recorded phone calls between the

4

Appeal: 12-4420

Doc: 69

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 5 of 7

coconspirators because the transcripts identified the speakers. *
“We

review

a

trial

court’s

rulings

on

the

admissibility

of

evidence for abuse of discretion, and we will only overturn an
evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational.”

United

States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).

In addition, we will not

“set aside or reverse a judgment on the grounds that evidence
was erroneously admitted unless justice so requires or a party’s
substantial rights are affected.”

Creekmore v. Maryview Hosp.,

662 F.3d 686, 693 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 61).
Our

review

of

the

record

and

the

relevant

legal

authorities

leads us to conclude that the district court did not commit
error in admitting the transcripts of the recorded calls.
Finally, Street argues that he should not have been
attributed a criminal history point for a prior conviction to
which he pleaded guilty but received no term of imprisonment.
In

reviewing

the

district

court’s

*

calculations

under

the

Street has also filed a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter
citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alleyne v. United
States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), in which the Court
determined that any fact that increases a statutory mandatory
minimum term of imprisonment must be submitted to the jury.
Here, as the drug weights were charged in the indictment,
submitted to the jury, and found by the jury beyond a reasonable
doubt, and no other factors affecting the statutory mandatory
minimum were found to be applicable to Street, his sentence did
not violate the mandate of Alleyne.

5

Appeal: 12-4420

Doc: 69

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 6 of 7

Guidelines, “we review the district court’s legal conclusions de
novo

and

its

factual

findings

for

clear

error.”

United

States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal
quotation

marks

and

citation

omitted).

We

will

“find

clear

error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Id. at 631 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation
omitted).
Under the Guidelines, a district court shall assign
(a)

three

criminal

history

points

to

prior

sentences

of

imprisonment exceeding one year and one month, (b) two criminal
history points to prior sentences of imprisonment of at least
sixty days, and (c) one criminal history point for each prior
sentence other than those counted in subsections (a) and (b), up
to

a

total

Sentencing

of

four

points

Guidelines

Manual

under

subsection

(“USSG”)

§

(c).

See

4A1.1(a)-(c)

U.S.

(2012).

Here, the district court properly assigned one criminal history
point to Street’s prior conviction for misdemeanor possession or
sale of alcoholic beverages without a permit, a conviction for
which

Street

Further,
Street

the
for

imprisonment

did

not

number
prior
equaled

receive

of

criminal

sentences
the

of

maximum

6

a

sentence
history
less

of

points

imprisonment.
assigned

than

sixty

days

permissible

total

of

to
of

four.

Appeal: 12-4420

Doc: 69

Therefore,

the

Filed: 08/23/2013

district

Pg: 7 of 7

court

did

not

err

in

calculating

Street’s criminal history category.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

7