United States v. Renteria
2013 WL 3215205
10th Cir.2013Background
- Defendants-appellants were charged with drug-conspiracy and related offenses in Wyoming and California, arising from Fresno Bulldogs activity 2007–2010.
- Over five weeks of trial, prosecutors relied on testimony from thirty witnesses, including cooperating witnesses and law-enforcement experts.
- Special Agent Hall testified about the operation; Velasquez, Ordaz, and Renteria supplied methamphetamine and wired proceeds to Fresno.
- Detective Gonzalez linked Ordaz to the Fresno Bulldogs and identified gang-related indicators in photos and testimony.
- Evidence included weaponry and drugs found at Ordaz’s home, and multiple wire-transfer and money-wiring records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Giglio claims undisclosed witness deals | Renteria asserts undisclosed leniency deals with Morgan witnesses | Renteria/Garcia/Ordaz contend lack of district-record; potential Giglio violation | Waived for want of a factual record; no new trial ordered |
| Admission of summary charts (Exhibits 5000–5003) | Charts were improper summaries of testimony | Charts were permissible under Rule 1006/611 | Not an abuse of discretion; admissible under Ray framework |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Renteria—conspiracies | Evidence supported conspiracy to distribute >500 grams and money laundering | Arguments based on credibility of co-conspirators and lack of direct testimony | Evidence sufficient to sustain both conspiracy convictions beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Garcia—money laundering conspiracy | Records and corroborating testimony show laundering conspiracy | Reliance on a few witnesses; potential evidentiary gaps | Sufficient under Keck standard; corroborative records support conviction |
| Ordaz—firearm counts and unanimity; multiplicity | Evidence showed guns in his home connected to drug activity; no unanimity necessary | Requests for unanimity instruction ignored; potential multiplicity issue | Unanimity not required for § 924(c) counts; counts not multiplicious; no plain error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Ray, 370 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2004) (two-part test for admissibility of summarized exhibits under Rule 611(a))
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 ((2005)) (relevance to evidentiary rulings under Booker framework)
- United States v. Moore, 919 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir. 1990) (unanimity concerns for multiple § 924(c) convictions not error when multiple firearms could be linked to the underlying offense)
- United States v. Theodoropoulos, 866 F.2d 587 (3d Cir. 1989) (unanimity issue related to which firearm; later overruled as to scope but noted for comparison)
- United States v. Jenkins, 313 F.3d 549 (10th Cir. 2002) (multiplicity of § 924(c) counts tied to distinct predicate offenses)