Drug conspiracy conviction supported by the record

Where the testimony of co-conspirators and cooperating witnesses, as well as recorded conversations involving the defendant supported a man’s conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, the conviction was affirmed.

Background

Tony Chevallier appeals his conviction and sentencing for conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. On appeal, Chevallier argues that the district court erred in denying his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

He also argues that his sentence is procedurally unreasonable because the district court failed to correctly calculate his advisory sentencing guidelines range and clearly erred in applying a three-level offense enhancement. Further, Chevallier claims that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court’s review of the statutory sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) did not justify the sentence he received. Lastly, he maintains the district court erred in denying his counsel’s request for a continuance of his sentencing hearing.

Acquittal

Chevallier does not dispute that the evidence sufficiently proved his participation in a drug-trafficking organization led by Antonio McKoy. However, attempting to discredit the evidence presented against him as to the quantity of drugs involved, he argues that the government’s evidence was insufficient to establish the statutory threshold quantity of 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine. The court finds Chevallier’s sufficiency argument meritless.

Chevallier’s arguments seek to review isolated pieces of the record and suggest that those pieces could be analyzed differently; that approach turns sufficiency review on its head. The testimony of co-conspirators and cooperating witnesses, as well as recorded conversations involving Chevallier, indicate that he was responsible for the distribution—or possession with intent to distribute—of a significant amount of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine that easily surpassed 500 grams.

Procedural unreasonableness

Chevallier challenges the district court’s calculation of his advisory guidelines range as procedurally unreasonable, contending that the district court fundamentally miscalculated the drug weight attributable to him. Specifically, he attempts to discredit an ATF agent’s testimony as to the wiretapped phone conversations, characterizing them as vague and inconclusive guesswork.

It was not the agent’s investigation that was vague, but rather the wiretapped “drug-related conversations” themselves because they “involve[d] the use of code words to conceal the true nature of illegal activities.” Using his expertise, the agent appropriately applied his “extensive experience to analyze the meaning of the conversations through context” and drew logical inferences based on his interpretations and other evidence presented. Accordingly, it was well within the district court’s discretion to credit the agent’s testimony in arriving at the figure of 7,785.66 kilograms of converted drug weight.

Next, Chevallier challenges the district court’s imposition of a three-level offense enhancement under § 3B1.1(b). The district court did not clearly err in applying the enhancement, however, after finding that “the evidence presented both at trial and here at the sentencing hearing” made it clear that “Chevallier was exercising the decision-making authority with respect to the methamphetamine component in particular of the conspiracy” and that “[t]he nature and scope of the illegal activity was extensive.”

Remaining arguments

Chevallier also contends that the district court failed to consider all of the relevant § 3553(a) factors in sentencing him, leading to the imposition of a substantively unreasonable sentence. However, the record makes clear that the district court considered these factors.

Finally, Chevallier claims the district court erred in denying his counsel’s motion for a continuance of his sentencing hearing. However Chevallier fundamentally mischaracterizes the district court proceedings pertaining to the continuance. Chevallier’s remaining arguments are equally baseless.

Affirmed.

United States v. Chevallier, Appeal No. 19-4002, Oct. 2, 2020. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from EDNC at Wilmington (Dever). Frank A. Abrams for Appellant. Brian A. Benczkowski, Matthew S. Miner, Vijay Shanker, Robert J. Higdon Jr. and Jennifer P. May-Parker for Appellee. VLW 020-2-262. 17 pp.