Filed: Jun. 14, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4206 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VALENTIN VILLARREAL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-03-76) Submitted: May 22, 2006 Decided: June 14, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Culler, C
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-4206 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus VALENTIN VILLARREAL, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-03-76) Submitted: May 22, 2006 Decided: June 14, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Culler, CU..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4206
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
VALENTIN VILLARREAL, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CR-03-76)
Submitted: May 22, 2006 Decided: June 14, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard A. Culler, CULLER & CULLER, P.A., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, D. Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Valentin Villarreal, Jr., was convicted by a jury of one
count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
and one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). Villarreal was
sentenced by the district court to 135 months’ imprisonment. We
find no error and affirm Villarreal’s convictions.
Villarreal first contends that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion to suppress documents untimely
produced by the Government. We review a district court’s decision
to sanction a party for discovery violations for abuse of
discretion. See United States v. Hastings,
126 F.3d 310, 316 (4th
Cir. 1997).
In determining a suitable and effective sanction, a court
must weigh the reasons for the government’s delay and
whether it acted intentionally or in bad faith; the
degree of prejudice, if any, suffered by the defendant;
and whether any less severe sanction will remedy the
prejudice and the wrongdoing of the government.
Id. at 317. In light of these factors, we agree with the district
court that suppression of the documents would have been too severe
a sanction for the Government’s error. We therefore find no abuse
of discretion in the court’s offering Villarreal a continuance as
an appropriate sanction.
Next, Villarreal contends the district court improperly
admitted expert testimony from a law enforcement officer regarding
the nature of notations on documents admitted at trial. We review
- 2 -
a district court’s decision to admit expert testimony for abuse of
discretion. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael,
526 U.S. 137, 152
(1999). Before allowing expert testimony, the district court must
determine that the testimony is both reliable and relevant; that
is, that the testimony is scientifically valid and that it will
assist the trier of fact in understanding or determining a fact in
issue in the case. See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,
509
U.S. 579, 592-93 (1993). This court has “repeatedly upheld the
admission of law enforcement officers’ expert opinion testimony in
drug trafficking cases.” United States v. Gastiaburo,
16 F.3d 582,
589 (4th Cir. 1994). Therefore, because the manner in which drug
dealers record transactions is not a fact commonly known to a jury,
and expert testimony helping the jury understand drug quantity is
relevant to the offense, we find no abuse of discretion in
admission of the expert testimony.
Villarreal’s final contention is that the evidence was
insufficient to support his conspiracy conviction. To determine if
there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, we consider
whether, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the
Government, substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict.
Glasser v. United States,
315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). We review both
direct and circumstantial evidence, and permit the “government the
benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those
sought to be established.” United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d
- 3 -
1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). Witness credibility is solely within
the province of the jury, and this court will not reassess the
credibility of testimony. See United States v. Saunders,
886 F.2d
56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989).
To prove conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance,
the Government must establish that: (1) two or more persons agreed
to distribute the substance; (2) the defendant knew of the
conspiracy; and (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became
part of the conspiracy. United States v. Burgos,
94 F.3d 849, 857
(4th Cir. 1996) (en banc). A defendant may be convicted of
conspiracy without knowing all the conspiracy’s details, so long as
he joins the conspiracy understanding its unlawful nature and
willfully joins in the plan on at least one occasion. Id. at 858.
Construing the evidence admitted at trial in the light most
favorable to the Government, we find it sufficient to support the
jury’s verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm Villarreal’s convictions. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -