United States v. William Kiekow
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18084
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants William Kiekow, Felipe Uriarte, and Arthur Pierre were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 846) after a 14‑day trial based on testimony from nearly 50 cooperating witnesses alleging a multi‑state trafficking scheme tied to Mexican cartels.
- Uriarte allegedly supplied cocaine via a tire/rim shop in Houston; Garcia and his drivers transported loads (hidden in tires/spare compartments) to Mississippi and other states.
- Pierre (customer) and Kiekow (associate living on Pierre’s property) received multiple deliveries in Picayune, MS; jury attributed 5+ kg to Uriarte and 500 g–5 kg to Kiekow.
- Kiekow was sentenced using the 2012 Guidelines (including a two‑level premises enhancement) to 121 months; Uriarte was sentenced under 2009 Guidelines to 300 months after a three‑level manager/supervisor enhancement.
- Appeals raised venue and sufficiency challenges, sentencing challenges (including an Ex Post Facto issue for Kiekow), evidentiary rulings (drug‑dog alert), a motion for new trial based on a witness recantation, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument.
- Court affirmed convictions, affirmed Uriarte’s sentence, vacated and remanded Kiekow’s sentence for resentencing under the correct Guidelines, and denied Pierre’s new‑trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue (Eastern District of Texas) | Gov: venue proper because conspiracy began/continued/traveled through E.D. Tex. (I‑10 route) | Appellants: evidence centered in MS, LA, Houston; no acts in E.D. Tex. | Venue proper; travel through E.D. Tex. (I‑10 past Beaumont) was an overt act supporting venue under §3237(a) and conspiratorial overt‑act rule. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy | Gov: abundant witness testimony tied defendants to agreement, distribution, transport, and proceeds | Defendants: challenged that evidence was insufficient/circumstantial | Convictions supported; a rational jury could find agreement, knowledge, and voluntary participation beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Sentencing (Kiekow & Uriarte) | Gov: PSR and district court quantified drug amounts and applied role/premises/manager enhancements | Kiekow: challenges drug‑quantity calc, minimal‑participant, and Ex Post Facto (premises enhancement not in effect during offense). Uriarte: challenges quantity and 3‑level manager enhancement | Uriarte: sentence affirmed (court did not clearly err in quantity or manager enhancement). Kiekow: court committed plain error applying 2012 premises enhancement—vacated and remanded for resentencing under correct Guidelines. |
| Evidentiary/new‑trial issues & closing‑argument claims | Pierre: dog‑alert was prejudicial and should have been excluded; recanted witness Jackson merits new trial. Appellants: prosecutorial vouching in rebuttal | Gov: counsel opened the door to dog evidence; Jackson’s recantation lacks credibility and would not likely produce acquittal; rebuttal comments responded to defense attacks on witnesses | Dog alert admissible (defense opened the door at trial); new‑trial motion denied (recantation not credible/material enough to produce acquittal); no prejudicial vouching—rebuttal within scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Romans, 823 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (venue/overt‑act principles in multi‑district drug conspiracies)
- United States v. Garcia Mendoza, 587 F.3d 682 (5th Cir.) (venue in drug transit cases; co‑conspirator travel establishes venue)
- United States v. Strain, 396 F.3d 689 (5th Cir.) (venue preservation and related analysis)
- United States v. Olguin, 643 F.3d 384 (5th Cir.) (elements of conspiracy and sufficiency review)
- Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (Ex Post Facto violation where later Guidelines increase sentencing exposure)
- United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir.) (sentencing judge may find Guideline‑relevant facts by preponderance)
- United States v. Marmolejo, 106 F.3d 1213 (5th Cir.) (role‑reduction analysis; defendant’s activity tied to offense controls §3B1.2 relief)
- United States v. Myers, 772 F.3d 213 (5th Cir.) (remand warranted where improper Guidelines increased sentencing exposure)