United States v. Lora-Andres, No. 16-1549 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and use of a communication facility to further a controlled substance conspiracy. The court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress incriminating telephone recordings and rejected defendant's argument under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-22. The court concluded that the two government informants were acting under color of law when recording their conversations with defendant where the informants were acting at the direction of law enforcement. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury about the punishment defendant faced if convicted because the district court is not required to instruct a jury about the sentencing consequences of its verdict. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant played a managerial or supervisory role in the methamphetamine operation and imposing a two-level sentencing enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(c). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Colloton and Beam, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. When cooperators recorded their phone calls with defendant, they were acting at the direction of law enforcement and were "acting under color of law;" the recordings were legal under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(c), and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress; the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct the jury that defendant faced a ten-year mandatory minimum if convicted of conspiracy to distribute 500 or more grams of meth; no error in imposing a two-level enhancement under Guidelines Sec. 3B1.1(c) for management role in the offense.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.