US v. Manuel Garcia, No. 12-4420 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-4420 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MANUEL CAMACHO GARCIA, a/k/a Meno, Defendant - Appellant. No. 12-4783 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. TIMOTHY LEON STREET, a/k/a Supreme, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:11-cr-00253-TDS-3; 1:11-cr-00253-TDS-7) Submitted: August 15, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anne M. Hayes, Cary, North Carolina; James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellants. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: A conspiracy federal to jury distribute convicted cocaine, Manuel in Camacho violation Garcia of 21 of U.S.C. § 846 (2006), and convicted Timothy Leon Street of conspiracy to distribute § 846. cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. The district court sentenced Garcia to 140 months of imprisonment, and sentenced Street imprisonment, and they now appeal. Garcia argues on to 245 months of Finding no error, we affirm. appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the Government failed to demonstrate conspiracy. that he knowingly joined in the We review a district court s decision to deny a Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal de novo. United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209, 216 (4th Cir. 2006). A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence faces a heavy burden. United States v. Beidler, 110 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 1997). viewing the The verdict of a jury must be sustained if, evidence prosecution, the evidence. Smith, in verdict 451 the light is F.3d most favorable supported at 216 by to the substantial (citations omitted). Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. (internal quotation marks 3 and citation omitted). Furthermore, [t]he jury, not the reviewing court, weighs the credibility of the evidence and resolves any conflicts in the evidence quotation presented. marks and Beidler, citation 110 F.3d omitted). at 1067 (internal Reversal for insufficient evidence is reserved for the rare case where the prosecution s failure is clear. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In order to prove that Garcia conspired to distribute cocaine, the Government needed to show (1) an agreement between two or more persons, (2) that Garcia knew of the agreement, and (3) that Garcia knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 857 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citations omitted). However, the Government required to make this showing through direct evidence. was not In fact, a conspiracy may be proved wholly by circumstantial evidence, and therefore may be inferred from the circumstances presented at trial. Id. at 858. We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the Government provided sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that Garcia was guilty of the conspiracy charge. Street argues on appeal that the district court erred in admitting the transcripts of recorded phone calls between the 4 coconspirators because the transcripts identified the speakers. * We review a trial court s rulings on the admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion, and we will only overturn an evidentiary ruling that is arbitrary and irrational. United States v. Cole, 631 F.3d 146, 153 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, we will not set aside or reverse a judgment on the grounds that evidence was erroneously admitted unless justice so requires or a party s substantial rights are affected. Creekmore v. Maryview Hosp., 662 F.3d 686, 693 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 61). Our review of the record and the relevant legal authorities leads us to conclude that the district court did not commit error in admitting the transcripts of the recorded calls. Finally, Street argues that he should not have been attributed a criminal history point for a prior conviction to which he pleaded guilty but received no term of imprisonment. In reviewing the district court s * calculations under the Street has also filed a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter citing the Supreme Court s recent decision in Alleyne v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), in which the Court determined that any fact that increases a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment must be submitted to the jury. Here, as the drug weights were charged in the indictment, submitted to the jury, and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and no other factors affecting the statutory mandatory minimum were found to be applicable to Street, his sentence did not violate the mandate of Alleyne. 5 Guidelines, we review the district court s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Manigan, 592 F.3d 621, 626 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We will find clear error only if, on the entire evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id. at 631 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). Under the Guidelines, a district court shall assign (a) three criminal history points to prior sentences of imprisonment exceeding one year and one month, (b) two criminal history points to prior sentences of imprisonment of at least sixty days, and (c) one criminal history point for each prior sentence other than those counted in subsections (a) and (b), up to a total Sentencing of four points Guidelines Manual under subsection ( USSG ) § (c). See 4A1.1(a)-(c) U.S. (2012). Here, the district court properly assigned one criminal history point to Street s prior conviction for misdemeanor possession or sale of alcoholic beverages without a permit, a conviction for which Street Further, Street the for imprisonment did not number prior equaled receive of criminal sentences the of maximum 6 a sentence history less of points imprisonment. assigned than sixty days permissible total of to of four. Therefore, the district court did not err in calculating Street s criminal history category. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 7
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.
