United States v. Juan Avila, 16-6624

Background

DEA and ATF investigated Isai Pedraza (a spinoff investigation). Wiretaps and surveillance intercepted calls arranging drug money and cocaine deliveries in late 2015.
On October 6, 2015 agents seized $312,000 from truck driver Gilberto Garza Solis after a meeting with Pedraza.
On November 19, 2015, surveillance observed a transfer between a tractor-trailer (driven by codefendants Orozco, Avila, Gutierrez) and a minivan associated with Pedraza; a traffic stop recovered 28 kg of vacuum-sealed cocaine from the minivan. A small bag of cocaine was also found in the truck cab.
Truck drivers’ logs omitted an unscheduled Chicago detour; GPS data contradicted log entries, suggesting concealment. Wiretap recordings contained coded references (e.g., “snow”) and post-delivery calls referring to “furniture.”
A jury convicted four defendants of conspiracy to distribute cocaine; Pedraza was also convicted of money laundering, conspiracy to commit promotional money laundering, and possession of a machine gun. Defendants appealed evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of the evidence, the wiretap, and sentencing issues. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (Orozco, Avila)	Gov: circumstantial evidence (calls, surveillance, odor, in-cab cocaine, concealment) supports conspiracy convictions	Orozco/Avila: innocent explanations (side job, unaware of drugs)	Affirmed: jury could reasonably infer knowledge and participation from circumstantial evidence
Wiretap "necessity" (Pedraza)	Gov: wiretap justified after other techniques used/exhausted and surveillance-conscious target made other methods unlikely to succeed	Pedraza: investigators made significant progress with traditional techniques; application minimized those successes and failed the §2518(1)(c) necessity requirement	Affirmed: district court did not err; application demonstrated case-specific limits and exhaustion of techniques; great deference to issuing judge
Cross-exam about government-requested polygraph of cooperating witness (Pedraza)	Pedraza: whether gov. required a polygraph is relevant to witness credibility; jury might otherwise assume he passed one	Gov: whether a polygraph was requested relates only to government belief, not witness credibility	Affirmed: district court properly excluded; even if error, harmless given overwhelming independent evidence
Sentencing quantity findings and Apprendi/Alleyne (Gutierrez)	Gutierrez: judge’s relevant-conduct finding attributing 28 kg violated Apprendi/Alleyne by increasing mandatory minimum/statutory maximum beyond jury’s verdict	Gov: judge may find relevant conduct by preponderance for Guidelines so long as sentence remains within statutory range set by jury verdict	Affirmed: judge-treated quantity as relevant conduct within permissible bounds; sentence within statutory range; no Apprendi/Alleyne violation

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
United States v. Kahn, 415 U.S. 143 (U.S. 1974) (wiretap necessity purpose to limit resort to electronic surveillance)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing statutory penalties must be submitted to jury, subject to exceptions)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (fact increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review of substantive reasonableness of sentences; presumption for within-Guidelines sentences)
United States v. Pritchett, 749 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2014) (judge-found relevant conduct may be used to calculate Guidelines if sentence remains within statutory range)
United States v. Sliwo, 620 F.3d 630 (6th Cir. 2010) (insufficient evidence where defendant had no direct connection to drug transactions)
United States v. Tarwater, 308 F.3d 494 (6th Cir. 2002) (circumstantial evidence may sustain conviction if substantial and competent)