United States v. Jose Andres Vera-Gutierrez, 964 F.3d 733

Background

Jose Andres Vera-Gutierrez was indicted with co-defendants for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 500+ grams of methamphetamine; jury convicted him and he was sentenced to 300 months.
At trial the government introduced 124 exhibits, including spreadsheet (Ex. 113) summarizing call contacts among co-conspirators and cell-tower location maps (Exs. 114, 125) prepared by an agent from carrier data; the agent testified the exhibits were based on carrier data and were “true and accurate.”
Co-defendant Felipe Castro pleaded guilty, testified for the government, and wiretap recordings of Castro’s phone captured many contacts referenced in the charts; Castro described drug meetings and identified Vera-Gutierrez’s role.
Vera-Gutierrez objected at trial to foundation/hearsay for some exhibits; the district court overruled and later denied his new-trial motion.
At sentencing the court applied a two-level obstruction enhancement based on Castro’s testimony that Vera-Gutierrez made a threatening remark to him before trial; the court found the testimony credible and granted a downward variance from a guideline range of 360 months–life to 300 months.
On appeal Vera-Gutierrez challenged admissibility of the call-summary and cell-site exhibits, the obstruction enhancement, and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of call-summary (Ex. 113)	Vera-Gutierrez: chart lacked foundation and underlying carrier records; it was essential corroboration and its admission was prejudicial.	Gov.: agent authenticated the chart as true and accurate; multiple other sources corroborated same communications.	Court: Even if admission was erroneous for lack of foundation, error was harmless because wiretaps, Castro’s testimony, and defendant’s own admissions supplied substantial corroboration.
Admissibility of cell-site maps (Exs. 114, 125)	Vera-Gutierrez: maps lacked underlying data/authentication and were essential to show meetings and travel corroborating drug transactions.	Gov.: maps duplicated other evidence (wiretaps, Castro’s and Torres’s testimony, officer observations).	Court: Admission error, if any, was harmless given overlapping testimony and evidence confirming locations and meetings.
Obstruction-of-justice enhancement	Vera-Gutierrez: enhancement unwarranted (contested threat).	Gov.: Castro credibly testified that Vera-Gutierrez threatened him; even an unsuccessful intimidation supports enhancement.	Court: Affirmed enhancement; district court’s credibility finding not clearly erroneous and supports two-level increase under U.S.S.G. §3C1.1.
Substantive reasonableness of 300-month sentence	Vera-Gutierrez: sentence excessive given personal history and mitigating factors.	Gov.: district court considered §3553(a) factors and properly weighed offense seriousness and deterrence.	Court: Sentence reasonable; district court weighed factors, granted a downward variance, and did not abuse discretion.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Melton, 870 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2017) (deference to district court on evidentiary rulings)
United States v. McCorkle, 688 F.3d 518 (8th Cir. 2012) (reversal only for clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion)
United States v. Adejumo, 772 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2014) (harmless-error standard for evidentiary mistakes)
United States v. Spires, 628 F.3d 1049 (8th Cir. 2011) (summaries admissible but admission may be harmless if other evidence corroborates)
United States v. Whitlow, 815 F.3d 430 (8th Cir. 2016) (jury may credit cooperating witness testimony)
United States v. Marrowbone, 211 F.3d 452 (8th Cir. 2000) (erroneous evidentiary rulings can be harmless)
United States v. Abdul-Aziz, 486 F.3d 471 (8th Cir. 2007) (clear-error review of factual findings supporting obstruction enhancement)
United States v. Thompson, 210 F.3d 855 (8th Cir. 2000) (attempted witness intimidation sufficient for obstruction enhancement)
United States v. Collins, 754 F.3d 626 (8th Cir. 2014) (broad district-court discretion to apply §3C1.1)
United States v. Sandoval-Sianuqui, 632 F.3d 438 (8th Cir. 2011) (district court’s credibility assessments are rarely clear error)
United States v. Harris, 493 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (framework for reviewing reasonableness of sentencing)
United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing)
United States v. Anwar, 880 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2018) (downward variance seldom an abuse when court explains reasons)
United States v. Nunn, 940 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir. 1991) (implicit telephone threat can constitute obstruction)
United States v. Morrissey, 895 F.3d 541 (8th Cir. 2018) (failure to object at trial forfeits hearsay objection)