United States v. Navarrette-Aguilar, No. 14-30056 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute heroin, distribution of heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and a special finding that the quantity of heroin was at least one kilogram. Applying the Jackson v. Virginia standard, the court concluded that the district court did not err in declining to apply the multiplier method given the facts of this case; the district court did not err in disregarding the circumstantial evidence of the secret storage compartment in defendant’s vehicle, capable of holding 30 pounds of drugs; and the testimonial and physical evidence cannot support a finding of one kilogram. Therefore, the court affirmed as to this issue. The court concluded, however, that the district court erred by concluding that the pattern of transactions constituted circumstantial evidence that defendants must have agreed to distribute as much heroin as they could and that the distribution would have continued in a similar fashion; it would be speculative to infer that defendants agreed to any future transactions such that they would reach the one kilogram mark; and the court's conclusion is further supported by the Fourth Circuit's holding in United States v. Hickman. Because this error was not harmless, the court reversed the jury’s quantity finding, vacated defendant’s sentence on all counts, and remanded for resentencing. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's evidentiary ruling permitting the government to ask defendant's sister about his prior state convictions for drug trafficking and escape.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part a criminal judgment in a case in which a jury (1) found the defendant guilty of conspiracy to distribute heroin, distribution of heroin, and possession of heroin with intent to distribute; and (2) made a special finding that the quantity of heroin was at least one kilogram, triggering a mandatory minimum twenty-year sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(i). The panel concluded, as did the district court, that the testimonial and physical evidence cannot support a finding of one kilogram. The panel held that the district court erred, however, in determining that the pattern of transactions permitted the jury to conclude that members of the conspiracy would have eventually distributed one kilogram of heroin. The panel wrote that it would be speculative to infer that the defendants agreed to any future transactions such that they would reach the one kilogram mark. The panel held that the error was not harmless, and therefore reversed the jury’s quantity finding, vacated the sentence on all counts, and remanded for re-sentencing. Affirming the convictions, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted the government to ask the defendant’s sister, a defense witness, about the defendant’s prior convictions, where the witness UNITED STATES V. NAVARRETTE-AGUILAR 3 opened the door to impeachment. The panel concluded that even if the district court did abuse its discretion, the error was harmless.
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.