United States v. James Romans
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9202
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Four defendants (Romans, Moseby, Harden, Booker) convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute ≥1,000 kg marijuana; sentences ranged from 235–life, with Romans receiving life.
- Drug operation run by Romans and Eric Pieper in Indianapolis; shipments from Mexico, stash houses, repackaging and distribution; proceeds transported to Pieper in Texas (via Zigler and others) along routes crossing the Eastern District of Texas.
- Multiple witnesses (including cooperating co-conspirators Pieper, Michael Pieper, Zigler) and physical evidence tied defendants to the enterprise; several defendants had encounters with police and searches producing cash, guns, carbon-lined boxes, and drug packaging.
- Venue challenge: prosecution tried the case in the Eastern District of Texas based on members’ travel through that district transporting drug proceeds.
- Sentencing disputes focused on Guidelines enhancements (firearm, maintaining premises, leader/organizer), Johnson/ACCA residual-clause arguments, and sufficiency of evidence for membership and enhancements; Moseby’s firearm enhancement was reversed and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue in Eastern District of Texas | Govt: venue proper where conspiracy was begun, continued, or an overt act occurred; travel of co-conspirators through E.D. Tex. established venue | Defendants: venue improper because core acts occurred elsewhere (Indianapolis) | Venue was proper — travel/transit of proceeds through E.D. Tex. established venue by preponderance of the evidence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Booker was a conspirator | Govt: testimony, money transfers, pictures, recovered carbon-lined boxes and drug packaging tied Booker to conspiracy | Booker: insufficient evidence of membership | Evidence sufficed — a rational jury could find Booker was a member beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Right to counsel / Faretta & substituted counsel (Harden) | Harden: district court should have appointed substitute counsel; waiver of counsel involuntary | Govt: no conflict of interest or breakdown; Harden knowingly waived counsel after hearings | No Sixth Amendment violation; court did not abuse discretion; Harden’s Faretta waiver was knowing and voluntary. |
| Sentencing enhancements (firearm, premises, leadership) & Johnson/Apprendi claims (Moseby, Romans, Harden) | Defendants: some enhancements relied on facts not found by jury; Johnson invalidates residual-clause-based career/offender findings; Moseby: §2D1.1(b)(1) firearm enhancement improper | Govt: sentencing facts can be found by judge by preponderance unless they increase statutory min/max; evidence tied guns/premises to offenses; career-offender status stands or did not affect final range | Court: Apprendi/Alleyne inapplicable to discretionary Guideline findings that did not raise statutory min/max; Moseby’s firearm enhancement was clearly erroneous (no nexus) — sentence vacated and remanded; other enhancements for Romans upheld; Harden’s career-offender/residual-clause issue did not change his Guidelines range so no relief. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Thomas, 690 F.3d 358 (5th Cir.) (venue review standard; prosecution must show venue by preponderance)
- United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587 F.3d 682 (5th Cir.) (co-conspirator travel through district establishes venue for all co-conspirators)
- United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531 (5th Cir.) (venue and territorial jurisdiction proven by preponderance)
- United States v. Caldwell, 16 F.3d 623 (5th Cir.) (venue proper where agreement formed or overt act occurred)
- Hyde v. United States, 225 U.S. 347 (1912) (historic rule on conspiracy venue)
- United States v. Pomranz, 43 F.3d 156 (5th Cir.) (definition of overt act in furtherance of conspiracy)
- United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369 (5th Cir.) (conspiracy continues until affirmative showing of withdrawal)
- United States v. Mayes, 512 F.2d 637 (6th Cir.) (continuity presumption for ongoing conspiracies)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (facts increasing statutory maximum must be jury-found)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be jury-found)
- Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (ACCA residual-clause due process holding cited by defendants)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (ex post facto application of Guidelines)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991) (Eighth Amendment narrow proportionality principle)