United States v. Vega, 676 F.3d 708

Vega charged with conspiracy, distribution, possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of methamphetamine, and firearm possession; jury acquitted on counts 1, 2, and 6, mistrial declared on counts 4 and 5, retrial on 4 and 5 occurred.
Vega moved to suppress evidence from a residence search and his post-arrest statements; magistrate credited officers’ testimony and Miranda warnings per law.
District court denied suppression motion and Vega was later convicted on Count 4 (possession with intent to distribute) after retrial; Count 5 (firearm after drug use) acquitted.
During retrial, evidence of a January 12, 2010 controlled buy involving Horvath and Vega was admitted under Rule 404(b) to prove intent; district court gave limiting instructions.
At sentencing, court applied obstruction-of-justice enhancement (3C1.1) and denied acceptance of responsibility (3E1.1); Vega received an 80-month sentence following a guideline range of 97–121 months.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
suppression of evidence and statements	Vega: probable cause lacking; statements involuntary	Vega: officers lacked Miranda warnings and threatened family	probable cause supported; statements voluntary; suppression denial affirmed
admissibility of acquitted conduct at retrial	Vega: acquitted conduct should not be used to prove guilt	government; 404(b) applicable; limiting instruction adequate	admissible under Rule 404(b); prior acquittals not required to be admitted; no error in 404(b) handling
sufficiency of the evidence / judgment of acquittal	insufficient evidence of intent to distribute	quantity, packaging, and prior sales show intent	sufficient evidence to sustain conviction for possession with intent to distribute
obstruction of justice at sentencing	enhancement improper given trial testimony about Miranda warnings	record supports that Vega lied about Miranda and possession	3C1.1 enhancement supported by credibility findings; not clearly erroneous
acceptance of responsibility at sentencing	deserves two-level reduction for responsibility	enhancement for obstruction precludes acceptance	enhancement stands; no two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility

United States v. Augustine, 663 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 2011) (probable-cause review and totality of circumstances in warrant analysis)
United States v. Wells, 223 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2000) (clear-error/de novo review for suppression and probable cause; framework for totality of circumstances)
United States v. Cowling, 648 F.3d 690 (8th Cir. 2011) (Rule 404(b) evidence admissibility and balancing prejudice/probative value)
United States v. Mabie, 663 F.3d 322 (8th Cir. 2011) (obstruction-of-justice enhancement; credibility and deference to district court)
United States v. Ayala, 610 F.3d 1035 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for acceptance-of-responsibility)