Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
No. 08-4832
No. 08-5139
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L.
Voorhees,
District
Judge.
(5:06-cr-00037-RLV-DCK-9;
5:06-cr-00037-RLV-DCK-2)
Submitted:
Decided:
August 6, 2010
PER CURIAM:
Esequiel Herrera-Nieto and Maria Carbajal-Nieto, who
are husband and wife, were tried together on various drug and
firearm
charges.
Esequiel
was
convicted
of
conspiracy
to
and
one
substantive
offense.
Both
appeal
their
I.
Esequiel
contends
that
the
district
evidence
was
insufficient
to
support
his
court
erred
by
He asserted that
conviction
for
Crim.
P.
29
motion
judgment
of
acquittal.
United
When a
support it.
defined
reasonable
substantial
finder
of
fact
evidence
could
as
This court
evidence
accept
as
that
adequate
a
and
a reasonable doubt.
We
must
consider
circumstantial
as
well
as
direct
from
established.
the
the
proven
to
those
credibility
different,
decides
which
Murphy,
35
challenging
burden.
to
be
the
witnesses.
United
sought
facts
reasonable
interpretation
F.3d
the
143,
148
sufficiency
to
(4th
of
States
If the evidence
interpretations,
believe.
Cir.
the
v.
the
United
1994).
evidence
jury
States
A
faces
v.
defendant
a
heavy
1997).
To convict Esequiel of violating 18 U.S.C. 924(c)
(2006), the [G]overnment [had to] prove that [Esequiel] used or
carried a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime
or
possessed
trafficking crime.
firearm
in
furtherance
of
drug
673
(4th
Cir.
2007).
It
is
sufficient
if
the
defendants
the
firearm
jury
during
found
and
in
specifically
that
relation
the
to
Esequiel
conspiracy
Esequiels
home).
The
jury
further
found
that
Esequiel
Thus, the
any
one
of
which
would
be
sufficient
to
support
his
conviction.
We easily find that the evidence was sufficient to
support
Esequiels
conviction.
witness
testified
that
regularly
during
drug
As
Esequiel
transactions
to
began
after
the
conspiracy,
carrying
one
one
firearm
particular
drug
Accordingly, we
II.
Maria
calculated
the
Specifically,
contends
drug
she
that
amount
asserts
the
for
that
district
which
she
she
was
court
was
improperly
responsible.
wrongfully
attributed
with amounts for which the conspiracy was responsible before she
arrived in the United States on October 15, 2005. 2
district
courts
calculation
of
the
We review the
quantity
of
drugs
1999).
Marias
report
clearly
claim
is
without
calculated
the
support.
drug
Her
quantity
presentence
based
upon
controlled buys between late 2005 and August of 2006 and the
seizure
of
contraband
at
her
home.
Accordingly,
Maria
has
III.
Maria next asserts that the district court did not
provide a sufficient explanation for rejecting her request for a
lower
sentence
evaluating
the
and
for
choosing
sentencing
courts
the
imposed
explanation
sentence.
of
In
selected
not
explicitly
reference
18
U.S.C.
3553(a)
(2006)
or
sentence
within
properly
calculated
Guidelines
range.
2006).
must
state
the
individualized
reasons
that
justify
The
See
United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 578 (4th Cir. 2010).
We conclude that the district courts explanation in
this case was adequate.
sentence based upon the fact that she became involved in the
conspiracy through her husband and she did not know about his
dealings prior to her involvement.
not have a criminal history and that she was very young.
In
The court
many
discussed
drug
the
dealers
are
3553(a)
the
factors
same
and
age.
found
The
that
court
they
then
either
none
provided
supported
variance.
individualized
reasoning
Because
for
the
the
district
court
within-Guidelines
IV.
Finally, Maria contends that the district court should
have
sua
sponte
severed
her
trial
from
that
of
Esequiel.
(1993).
Absent
special
circumstances,
878,
883
(4th
Cir.
1994).
defendants
indicted
succeed
on
appeal,
sponte
prejudice.
Maria
and
order
severance
Id.
Esequiel
conducted
must
drug
make
colorable
transactions
evidence
may
have
been
relevant
to
the
claim
together,
of
and
While some of
charges
against
V.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm Maria and Esequiels
convictions
and
Marias
sentence.
We
dispense
with
oral
10