24-40139
5th Cir.Aug 29, 2025Background
- Large interstate marijuana-distribution scheme: defendants purchased marijuana/THC products in legal states (California/Oregon) and transported them by van to retail markets across 21 states; coordinators used Signal with auto-delete and codewords; cash-only payments and no banking were used.
- Multiple traffic stops and searches (New Mexico, Kansas, local surveillance, warehouse and storage-unit searches) recovered large quantities of marijuana/THC products, firearms, vacuum sealers, and hundreds of thousands in cash.
- A six-count superseding indictment charged multiple defendants with (inter alia) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 846), CCE (21 U.S.C. § 848) as to Roberts, and conspiracy to commit money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)). Five appellants went to jury trial; eight co-defendants testified for the Government.
- Jury convicted the five appellants of the drug conspiracy and of conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count 3); Roberts convicted of CCE and a § 924(c) firearm count (one co-defendant acquitted on a firearm count). Sentences varied; appellants appealed multiple evidentiary, sufficiency, and sentencing issues.
- Key contested evidentiary item: Government Exhibit 190 (an agent’s Rule 1006 spreadsheet summarizing phone extractions and attributing drug quantities by "trips"); appellants argued it was mathematically unreliable and improperly substituted averages for known quantities.
- Disposition in part: the court affirmed many convictions, vacated certain sentences (and one firearm sentence), found Exhibit 190’s admission plain error as to some appellants (remanding for resentencing under the default statutory penalty where applicable), and remanded to correct clerical errors in judgments/PSRs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Exhibit 190 under Fed. R. Evid. 1006 | Gov: spreadsheet summarized voluminous phone extractions, was supported by agent testimony and underlying materials | McGuire & Sargent: spreadsheet contained math errors, unjustified extrapolations and ‘‘guesstimates’’ replacing known weights | Admission preserved only partially; plain-error review applied; spreadsheet's extrapolations were clear error and prejudicial for McGuire and Sargent — conviction affirmed but remand for resentencing under default statute (drug-quantity minima vacated) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove >1,000 kg (Lala) | Gov: jury could reasonably find Lala foreseen large conspiracy quantity based on Signal messages and cooperator testimony | Lala: Exhibit 190’s 506-lb average unsupported; evidence insufficient to tie him to >1,000 kg | Affirmed — viewing trial evidence and Exhibit 190 as admitted, a rational jury could convict; credibility/inference issues go to the jury |
| Sentencing drug-quantity attribution (McGuire, Sargent, Lala) | Gov/PSR: adopt Exhibit 190’s allocations; court may extrapolate drug quantities by preponderance where evidence has indicia of reliability | Defendants: PSR relied on speculative extrapolation, mathematical errors, lacked individualized findings | McGuire: vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing (PSR reliance on Exhibit 190 insufficient without further reliability support). Sargent: affirmed (counsel conceded foreseeability at sentencing). Lala: affirmed (any error harmless; court would have imposed same sentence) |
| Money-laundering conspiracy theory (concealment vs promotion) | Gov: drivers used cash/avoid banking to conceal proceeds; alternatively promotional laundering (proceeds moved to promote activity) | Defendants: movements were routine payments to growers/drivers, not transactions designed to conceal or to promote laundering intent | Concealment theory fails (Cuellar requires purpose to conceal). Promotional-money-laundering theory sustains convictions — convictions for conspiracy to commit promotional money laundering affirmed |
| Sufficiency and amendment of CCE indictment / constructive amendment | Gov: predicates could be proved from trial evidence and other violations; any defect harmless | Roberts: indictment failed to allege requisite multiple predicate violations; jury instructions effectively broadened the indictment | Indictment deficient for listing multiple predicates but insufficiency was harmless given trial evidence and notice; constructive-amendment claim reviewed for plain error and rejected — CCE conviction affirmed |
| Firearm enhancement (Alleyne element) | Gov: sentencing on firearm count appropriate | Roberts: district court failed to submit short-barreled-rifle element to jury; Alleyne requires jury find facts increasing mandatory minimum | Government conceded error; the court vacated Roberts’s firearm sentence and remanded for resentencing on Count 6 |
Key Cases Cited
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error review framework)
- Olano v. United States, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (definition of plain error)
- Cuellar v. United States, 553 U.S. 550 (2008) (money-laundering concealment requires purpose to conceal)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (1999) (jury unanimity on predicate acts for CCE)
- Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) (facts increasing mandatory minimum are elements for jury)
- United States v. Spalding, 894 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 2018) (requirements and cautions for Rule 1006 summaries)
- United States v. Hart, 295 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2002) (Rule 1006 summaries cannot be used to prove unestablished operative facts)
- United States v. Gentry, 941 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2019) (district court may extrapolate drug quantity for sentencing if estimates have sufficient indicia of reliability)