United States v. Travis Longoria
831 F.3d 663
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- From 2004–2014 defendants (Daniel Longoria, Travis Longoria, Jose Cavazos, and David Rodriguez) ran a marijuana importation/distribution operation based at Abilene Automotive & Performance (AA&P). Daniel obtained marijuana from Mexico and Del Rio and supplied vehicles and mules to transport loads.
- Co-defendants followed or assisted mules; Cavazos and Daniel removed marijuana hidden in vehicles at AA&P; Travis and Rodriguez redistributed quantities locally.
- Investigations (undercover operations, surveillance, searches) recovered marijuana, distribution paraphernalia, cash, firearms, and phone evidence; forensic tests confirmed marijuana.
- A federal grand jury charged all four with conspiracy to distribute/possess with intent to distribute >100 kg of marijuana; trial produced testimony from 26 witnesses and physical and phone-record evidence.
- Jury convicted Daniel, Travis, and Cavazos on the indicted (>100 kg) conspiracy count; Rodriguez convicted of the lesser-included conspiracy involving <50 kg. Defendants raised challenges to sufficiency, severance, jury instructions, and quantity attribution at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and >100 kg | Circumstantial and testimonial evidence (witnesses, phones, seizures) support agreement, knowledge, participation, and quantity >100 kg | Defendants argue lack of an express agreement and no individual seizure of >100 kg; some failed to preserve challenge | Affirmed: viewing evidence in favor of gov't, a rational jury could find elements and quantity beyond reasonable doubt |
| Material variance (indictment v. proven conspiracy) | Evidence tied each defendant to at least one proved conspiracy; any variance did not affect substantial rights | Defendants claim evidence proved a different conspiracy than indicted | No plain error: defendants showed no substantial-rights prejudice |
| Motion to sever (Rodriguez) | Joint trial did not unduly prejudice Rodriguez; jury instructions protected individual consideration | Rodriguez argued spillover prejudice from strong evidence against co-defendants | No abuse of discretion: generalized spillover claim insufficient; jury treated Rodriguez separately (convicted of lesser offense) |
| Lesser-included jury instruction (requested by government orally) | Rule 30 permits any party to request instructions; oral request sufficed after extended colloquy | Rodriguez argued only defendant may request such instruction and written request required | No abuse: government may request lesser-included instructions; oral request adequate when court clearly informed |
| Sentencing quantity attribution | Court may approximate quantity reasonably foreseeable to each defendant using reliable trial evidence and guidelines commentary | Defendants contested quantities based on actual seizures being lower | No clear error: judge’s quantity findings grounded in reliable trial evidence and U.S.S.G. guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Grant, 683 F.3d 639 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard for de novo sufficiency review and viewing evidence in light most favorable to government)
- United States v. Vargas-Ocampo, 747 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 2014) (elements of drug conspiracy)
- United States v. Acosta, 763 F.2d 671 (5th Cir. 1985) (need not prove knowledge of all conspiracy details)
- United States v. Perez-Solis, 709 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain-error review for variance claims)
- United States v. Snarr, 704 F.3d 368 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard for severance/abuse of discretion review)
- United States v. Escalante-Reyes, 689 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2012) (plain-error framework elements)
- United States v. Castillo, 77 F.3d 1480 (5th Cir. 1996) (sentence quantity attributable to conspiracy and foreseeability)
- United States v. Betancourt, 422 F.3d 240 (5th Cir. 2005) (reliability of information for quantity approximation)
- United States v. Mitchell, 484 F.3d 762 (5th Cir. 2007) (government must establish defendant’s involvement in proved conspiracies to avoid variance prejudice)
- Hull v. United States, 324 F.2d 817 (5th Cir. 1963) (oral requests for jury instructions may suffice when court clearly informed)
- United States v. Mays, 466 F.3d 335 (5th Cir. 2006) (district court’s handling of lesser-included instructions in context of counsel’s strategy)
- United States v. Elam, 678 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1982) (failure to renew Rule 29 motion after presenting defense evidence waives sufficiency objection)