United States v. Kendrick Akins, 746 F.3d 590

DEA conducted a 2008-2010 wiretap-based investigation into a drug conspiracy moving cocaine, crack, and marijuana from Mexico to Texas and Oklahoma, centering on Edwards, Shawn Perkins, Akins, and others.
Ledgers and wiretapped calls tied Akins and Shawn Perkins to the crack-cocaine distribution network; multiple cooperating witnesses and controlled buys corroborated involvement.
A superseding indictment charged nine defendants with conspiracy to distribute drugs; eight went to trial and were convicted of Count One, with a special verdict allocating drug quantities to each defendant.
The Government presented extensive coded-language testimony and expert/lay interpretations of drug slang through Lyons (lay witness) and Styron (expert) to explain wiretap slang.
Defendants challenged Lyons’ lay-opinion on code words and Styron’s expert testimony; the court admitted both, and the convictions were later challenged on appeal.
On appeal, issues included evidentiary challenges, conspiracy-sufficiency for several defendants, severance timing, and sentencing determinations under Booker and related precedents.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
admissibility and scope of drug slang testimony	Akins, et al. argue Lyons testified as an expert and exceeded lay limits.	Akins, et al. contend the district court erred by admitting expert-style slang interpretations.	Court upheld admissibility as proper lay/expert-tinged testimony within discretion; harmless overall.
sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy	Prosecution showed Marco Perkins, Gage, Liggins, Walters, and Akins knowingly joined the conspiracy.	Defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence tying them to the conspiracy.	Evidentiary record supported each defendant’s knowing participation and aid in the conspiracy.
severance waiver	Severance was improperly raised after trial.	Gage preserved a severance challenge pre-trial, or in absence of timely motion, thus should be addressed.	Severance argument waived absent timely pre-trial motion; affirmed denial of severance claim.
drug-quantity attribution and Apprendi/Booker	Government seeks drug-quantity findings against defendants to support enhanced penalties.	Defendants argue errors in quantity attribution and Booker implications; some quantities exceed jury findings.	Court treated drug-quantity attribution as permissible within Booker framework; affirmed use of jury-found quantities plus attributable amounts for sentencing, with harmless error review where applicable.

United States v. McMillan, 600 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2010) (lay opinion testimony based on investigation permissible when not purely expert)
United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2001) (extensive involvement allows lay interpretation of slang concepts)
United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011) (agency opinions permissible when based on investigation-specific observations)
Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2013) (harmless-error framework for evidentiary rulings on lay/expert testimony)
United States v. Turner, 319 F.3d 716 (5th Cir. 2003) (guides standard for Apprendi/Alleyne-line sentencing considerations)