United States v. Cruz, 680 F.3d 1261

Cruz was convicted after a jury trial of possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release.
Police searched Cruz’s home in March 2010, finding 34.1 grams of meth, cash, steroids, and false ID, with traffic suggesting dealing activity.
A week earlier, police conducted a controlled buy at Cruz’s home with an unidentified confidential informant yielding 28 grams of meth.
The informant did not testify; officers testified Cruz greeted the informant and that the purchase occurred in Cruz’s driveway with field testing following.
Cruz admitted possession but contested intent to distribute; the government relied on the controlled buy, quantities, cash, and other circumstantial evidence.
Cruz argued the district court erred in denying disclosure of the informant’s identity and disputed the PSR’s treatment of the 28 grams.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government must disclose the informant’s identity	Government contends no disclosure required; balancing informant safety and defense needs favors non-disclosure.	Cruz argues disclosure is necessary to mount an effective defense and potentially contradict, or cast doubt on, officers’ observations.	No abuse of discretion; informant disclosure not required given the controlled buy’s limited role and other corroborating evidence.
Whether Rule 32 and PSR findings were properly addressed for the 28 grams	Government asserts the district court properly considered the controlled buy as relevant conduct with supporting trial and PSR evidence.	Cruz argues the 28 grams were uncharged/unconvicted and improperly attributed without clear, specific objection or proof.	District court’s rulings were proper; no need for remand; evidence supports relevant-conduct finding.

Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (informant identity balancing)
United States v. Vincent, 611 F.3d 1246 (10th Cir. 2010) (informant-identity abuse-of-discretion review)
United States v. Moralez, 908 F.2d 565 (10th Cir. 1990) (reversals for disclosure often rely on informant's pivotal role)
Gaines v. Hess, 662 F.2d 1364 (10th Cir. 1981) (informant testimony value often speculative)
United States v. Gordon, 173 F.3d 761 (10th Cir. 1999) (informant testimony value not required)
United States v. Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1992) (informant testimony may be nonessential)
United States v. Reyes, 979 F.2d 1406 (10th Cir. 1992) (absence of evidence of possession can affect inferences)
United States v. Wilken, 498 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review vs. no error here)
United States v. Cereceres-Zavala, 499 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2007) (de novo review for Rule 32 compliance)