United States v. Rodriguez

Case: 22-40235 Document: 00516888514 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2023

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED

September 8, 2023

No. 22-40235

Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee, versus

Jonathan Rodriguez,

Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:19-CR-656-1

______________________________

Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Jonathan Rodriguez appeals his conviction for (1) conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, see 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); (2) possessing with intent to distribute cocaine, see 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B); and (3) possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, see 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii), (c)(2). The district court departed downward and sentenced Rodriguez to a below-Guidelines sentence of 300 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. ROA.793–94, 2284, 2869–70.

Rodriguez raises nineteen issues on appeal.1 Four of the issues are directly foreclosed by binding precedent. See United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299, 316 (5th Cir. 2016) (foreclosing the challenge to the application of the preponderance standard to his Guidelines range calculation); United States v. Bolton, 908 F.3d 75, 95 (5th Cir. 2018) (foreclosing the challenge to the district court’s consideration of acquitted conduct for sentencing purposes); United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006) (foreclosing the attempt to apply the Confrontation Clause to sentencing hearings); United States v. Galloway, 951 F.2d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1992) (foreclosing the challenge to the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine).

The remaining fifteen issues fall into six different groups. First, Rodriguez challenges the district court’s denial of his suppression motion. We affirm the denial for substantially the reasons set out by the district court in its well-reasoned suppression order. ROA.3147–66.

Second, Rodriguez raises three unpreserved challenges, which we review for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 131 (2009). We conclude that the district court did not commit plain error when it (1) entered judgment against Rodriguez for possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, (2) instructed the jury that the burden of proof for extraneous offenses is beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) allowed testimony from a lay witness, based on his extensive knowledge and experience, about trap houses and drug ledgers.

Third, Rodriguez argues the district court abused its discretion in choosing to admit and exclude certain pieces of evidence. We see no abuse of discretion as to any of the district court’s evidentiary decisions Rodriguez highlights.

Fourth, Rodriguez argues the evidence is insufficient to support his three counts of conviction. Rodriguez preserved his sufficiency challenges, so we review them de novo. United States v. Moparty, 11 F.4th 280, 296 (5th Cir. 2021). This review is “highly deferential” to the jury’s verdict, and we will affirm if a rational jury could find that all elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (citation omitted). After reviewing the record, we find there is ample evidence to support that Rodriguez conspired to possess with intent to distribute more than 280 grams of crack cocaine, possessed with intent to distribute the cocaine seized from the storage unit, and possessed a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime.

Fifth, Rodriguez argues the district court committed multiple sentencing errors. After careful review, we reject Rodriguez’s arguments and conclude the district court committed no reversible sentencing errors.

Sixth, Rodriguez argues he is entitled to the return of his forfeited property. We find this argument inadequately briefed on appeal and therefore forfeited. See, e.g., Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2021).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rodriguez’s opposed motion to supplement the record on appeal is DENIED.