Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict defendants-Santana and Espinoza of "aiding and abetting" possession with intent to distribute cocaine; United States v. Bearden; United States v. Hardy; Coleman v. Johnson; Defendant-Soto's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; Strickland v. Washington; United States v. Dado; Kimmelman v. Morrison; United States v. Baker (4th Cir.); United States v. Leon; United States v. Carpenter; United States v. Higgins; Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict defendant-Respardo-Ramirez of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine; United States v. Atkin; United States v. Welch; Whether there was sufficient evidence to support Respardo-Ramirez's kidnapping conviction; United States v. Toledo (10th Cir.); Sentencing for "second or successive convictions"; United States v. Mack; United States v. Paige; Alleyne v. United States; Santana's claim that the drug-trafficking and kidnapping offenses should have been severed; "Plain error" review; Puckett v. United States; Fed.R.Crim.P. 14; Zafiro v. United States; United States v. Dale (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Joinder; Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a); Respardo-Ramirez's "variance" claim; United States v. Adams; Sufficiency of the evidence to support Espinoza's and Respardo-Ramirez's convictions of brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense; Aiding and abetting; Rosemond v. United States

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] There was sufficient evidence to support the four defendants' convictions for drug-trafficking, conspiracy, kidnapping, and firearms offenses. Defendants-Santana and Espinoza challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute cocaine, claiming that "the government did not present sufficient evidence of their specific intent to distribute cocaine." However, the evidence showed that the defendants' plot to rob another drug seller "was part of the broader drug-distribution conspiracy" where the jury could reasonably infer that the drugs would be returned to Chicago to be sold to other buyers. Defendant-Soto claimed ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's failure to litigate whether the search warrants were "facially defective." The court held that "the district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the challenged evidence would have been admitted under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, and therefore Soto could not establish the prejudice required for his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim." Defendant-Respardo-Ramirez argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine. However, a witness testified that Respardo-Ramirez had delivered cocaine to him "on behalf of Soto" approximately 20 times, allowing a reasonable jury to conclude that the plots to rob one drug dealer and kidnap others "were all part of a plan to help Soto collect a drug debt, and thus related to the drug conspiracy." Respardo-Ramirez also argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his kidnapping conviction because there was no proof that "the kidnapping victims did not consent to the transportation across state lines." However, witnesses testified that the victims were forced into a van at gunpoint and bound, and it was reasonable for the jury to infer that they "did not consent to being tied up in the van as they crossed the borders of Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois." The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the convictions on Count 7 (possession of a firearm in furtherance of and during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime) and 8 (possession of a firearm in furtherance of and during and in relation to a crime of violence) were separate offenses, noting that the jury found Santana and Soto guilty of two separate offenses - possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute it, and kidnapping. The kidnapping, the predicate offense for Count 8, occurred on 10/20/09. Count 7's predicate drug-trafficking offense occurred on 10/22/09. It was "logically consistent that the jury found Soto and Santana guilty of the two firearms offenses linked with the two predicate offenses, and thus any Alleyne error was harmless." Affirmed.