United States v. Ochoa, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 797

Ochoa was convicted by jury of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine and unlawful use of a communication facility; sentences were 235 months and 48 months concurrent.
Guerra, a co-defendant, admitted involvement; DEA linked the 254 number and 'Julio4' to Ochoa through phone records and informant testimony.
Evidence showed Ochoa present at the drop-off location, used coded names, and had multiple contacts with the 254 number.
Guerra’s cooperation and fingerprints on a prior drug conviction were used by the government to seek a § 841(b)(1)(A) enhancement, which the district court did not apply.
Ochoa moved to suppress information from his cell phone and pre/post-arrest statements; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding sufficient evidence for conspiracy, proper denial of suppression, and no sentencing error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the conspiracy conviction supported by sufficient evidence?	Ochoa argues there was insufficient evidence to prove knowledge and participation.	Ochoa contends he did not knowingly participate or understand the conspiracy's cocaine objective.	Yes; evidence showed knowledge and voluntary participation.
Did the district court err in denying the motion to suppress the phone data and statements?	Government contends search and statements were lawful or inevitably discovered.	Ochoa contends lack of probable cause and illegal cell phone search.	No; suppression denial affirmed, with inevitable discovery applicable for phone data.
Was there probable cause to arrest Ochoa without a warrant?	Agents had probable cause based on Guerra’s activities and timing of the bust signal.	Ochoa claims no probable cause existed for arrest.	Yes; totality of circumstances supported probable cause.
Was the cell phone search proper or harmless under inevitable discovery?	Phone data could be discovered during inventory of the vehicle.	Search was improper and not subject to inevitable discovery.	Inevitable discovery doctrine applied; the search was not reversible error.
Did the district court err in sentencing regarding the § 841(b)(1)(A) enhancement?	Government sought enhancement based on a prior drug felony.	Ochoa argues the enhancement should apply and result in longer sentence.	No error; the court did not apply the enhancement and sentenced within guidelines.

United States v. Cardenas, 9 F.3d 1139 (5th Cir. 1993) (conspiracy elements; knowledge and participation may be shown circumstantially)
United States v. Mulderig, 120 F.3d 534 (5th Cir. 1997) (circumstantial proof suffices for conspiracy)
United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369 (5th Cir. 2005) ( tacit conspiracy can be inferred from overlapping roles)
United States v. Thomas, 12 F.3d 1350 (5th Cir. 1994) (inference of knowledge in larger conspiracy)
United States v. Villarreal, 324 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2003) (knowledge inferred from possession of large quantities of drugs)
United States v. Wadley, 59 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 1995) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrest)
United States v. Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526 (5th Cir. 2007) (cooperating officer may know facts not in arresting officer's knowledge)
United States v. Seals, 987 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. 1993) (inventory search doctrine; discovery under normal police practices)
United States v. Hope, 102 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1996) (inventory search protections and reasonableness)
United States v. Zavala, 541 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 2008) (inevitable discovery standard)
United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
United States v. Watson, 273 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 2001) (probable cause for warrantless arrests; component of totality of circumstances)
United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2005) (plain error review for sentencing enhancements)