United States v. Marin

988 F.3d 1034

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.Raul Flores MARIN, Defendant - Appellant

No. 19-3214

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 17, 2020

Filed: February 24, 2021

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 2, 2021

Mikala Steenholdt, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Northern District of Iowa, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Charles L. Hawkins, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant - Appellant.

Raul Flores Marin, Pro Se.

Before LOKEN and GRASZ, Circuit Judges, and PITLYK,¹ District Judge.

PITLYK, District Judge.

Responding to a report of an unknown vehicle on a remote farm in the middle of the night, a sheriff's deputy passed a truck matching the reported vehicle's description. It had been barely ten minutes since the report, and the truck was two miles from the farm, driving away from it on an otherwise deserted road. When the deputy turned around to follow it, the truck veered onto the wrong side of the road. The deputy initiated a traffic stop, which culminated more than 35 minutes later in the arrest of the driver, Raul Marin.

Based in part on evidence collected from Marin's truck during and after that traffic stop, a jury later convicted him of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance.

On appeal, Marin challenges two holdings of the District Court:² (1) that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and (2) that the traffic stop that led to his arrest did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights. We affirm.

I. Background

Shortly after 2:40 AM on July 19, 2017, the Sheriff's Office of Osceola County, Iowa, received an emergency call from Jerry Seivert, who reported an unfamiliar pickup truck with Minnesota plates on his property. Dispatch sent Deputy Caleb Edwards to investigate. Edwards had been to Seivert's farm in rural Osceola County a few weeks before to investigate another report of a suspicious vehicle. Edwards also knew that Seivert had recently reported a daytime burglary of his residence, in which firearms and ammunition had been taken.

At 2:53 AM, about two miles from Seivert's property, Edwards encountered a Ford F-150 pickup truck traveling in the opposite direction, away from the farm. It was the first vehicle Edwards had encountered since leaving the Sheriff's Office. As the truck passed, Edwards observed that it had Minnesota plates. Because the truck matched Seivert's description of the vehicle that had been on his property, Edwards turned around to follow it. Shortly thereafter, the truck veered onto the left-hand side of the road, nearly entering a ditch on the opposite side. When Edwards caught up to the truck, he initiated a traffic stop.

Edwards approached the truck and asked the driver—later identified as Raul Marin—what he was doing. Marin responded that he was looking for his friend Clint Reiter to obtain the title to a trailer. Edwards requested Marin's driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance and asked Marin to accompany him to his squad car. Edwards also asked Marin if he had any weapons on his person; Marin responded in the negative. Edwards then asked to pat Marin down. Mid-pat-down, Marin reported having a Swiss army knife in his pocket, which Edwards confiscated.

Observing that Marin's speech was excited and fast, Edwards suspected that Marin might have been impaired. In response to questions about drug use, Marin admitted to using marijuana only once many years ago; he denied any other drug use. Edwards then obtained Marin's consent to take his pulse, which measured 120 to 125 beats per minute. Edwards radioed Deputy Matt Julius, a certified Drug Recognition Expert, for assistance. Edwards told Marin that, because his pulse was high, Edwards had called in an expert to ensure Marin was not intoxicated. While waiting for Julius to arrive, Edwards moved Marin, who was not handcuffed, to the backseat of the squad car. Edwards informed Marin that he was not under arrest.

Deputy Julius arrived about 20 minutes after Edwards radioed him and 35 minutes after the initial stop. Julius asked Marin if he had anything illegal in his vehicle, and Marin reported that he had a loaded handgun in the backseat under an article of clothing. Julius found the firearm where Marin had indicated. Edwards asked Marin if he had a permit to carry the firearm, and Marin responded that he did not. Edwards placed Marin under arrest and took him to jail. On inventory of the vehicle, Julius found methamphetamine, brass knuckles, a large amount of cash ($1,240), and cell phones.

The Government obtained a grand jury indictment charging Marin with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Marin filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the July 19, 2017, traffic stop. Over Marin's objections, the District Court adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to deny the motion to suppress.

The Government later obtained a superseding indictment against Marin, adding a charge of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846. After a four-day jury trial, Marin was found guilty on all three counts of the superseding indictment. He filed a motion for judgment of acquittal or new trial, which the District Court denied. He was sentenced to 180 months in prison.

Marin timely filed this appeal, arguing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and that the July 19, 2017, traffic stop violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

II. Analysis

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

Marin contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of possession of a firearm in furtherance of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). We disagree.

"We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo." United States v. Johnson , 745 F.3d 866, 868-69 (8th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). "When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, and affirm if any rational [factfinder] could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." United States v. Ojeda-Estrada , 577 F.3d 871, 874 (8th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

"To satisfy the ‘in furtherance of’ element of § 924(c), the government must present evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the possession had the effect of furthering, advancing or helping forward the drug crime." United States v. McDaniel , 925 F.3d 381, 386-87 (8th Cir. 2019) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Lindsey , 507 F.3d 1146, 1148 (8th Cir. 2007) ("To convict [the defendant] of possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, the government had to prove a nexus between [the defendant's] possession of the firearm and the drug crime." (citation omitted)). "A defendant's simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm, standing alone, is insufficient to sustain a conviction." United States v. Hilliard , 490 F.3d 635, 640 (8th Cir. 2007).

The Government presented sufficient evidence at Marin's trial to satisfy the "in furtherance of" element of § 924(c). The firearm was found in close proximity to the drugs and readily accessible to Marin, and an expert testified that firearms— and handguns in particular—are commonly used tools of the drug trade. This Court has repeatedly found similar showings sufficient to support conviction under § 924(c). See United States v. Close , 518 F.3d 617, 619 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Bell , 477 F.3d 607, 613-14 (8th Cir. 2007) ) ("[T]he jury may infer that the firearm was used in furtherance of a drug crime when it is kept in close proximity to the drugs, it is quickly accessible, and there is expert testimony regarding the use of firearms in connection with drug trafficking."); see also, e.g. , United States v. Griffin , 617 F. App'x 610, 613 (8th Cir. 2015) (evidence of marijuana and loaded firearm found within reach of driver's seat along with testimony from experienced narcotics agent sufficient to establish nexus between possession of the firearm and marijuana trafficking); Lindsey , 507 F.3d at 1148 (evidence that firearm was discovered beneath defendant's seat and near drugs, coupled with expert testimony, supported conviction under § 924(c) ).

Several fact witnesses also provided testimony supporting a nexus between Marin's possession of the firearm and his drug trafficking. For example, Reiter testified that he bought substantial quantities of methamphetamine from Marin at Seivert's property and that he owed Marin money for drugs prior to Marin's arrest. Another witness testified that Marin told him he had brought a gun the night of his arrest to collect a drug debt in Iowa. A third witness reported hearing from Marin's drug supplier that the supplier had provided Marin with a firearm to collect a drug debt from Reiter. And Seivert testified that his property was used by local dealers, including Marin, to sell drugs, and that he later learned that Marin had been on his property on July 19, 2017, looking for Reiter, who owed him money for drugs.

Marin argues that the above testimony is undercut by testimony from Jose Leones that a gun would interfere with collection of a debt, and from Luis Magallanes that Marin had bought the gun to address predatory animals attacking his chickens. But this Court will not second-guess a jury's credibility determinations or the weight it assigns to conflicting...