Admission of text messages; “Hearsay”; FRE 801(c); Coconspirator statements; FRE 802(d)(2)(E); Authentication; FRE 901(a); Sufficiency & weight of the evidence as to whether defendant sold drugs & the quantity attributed to him; Whether defendant was entitled to a new trial based on a witness’s allegedly false testimony; Sentencing; “Dangerous weapon” enhancement (USSG § 2D1.1(b)(1)); “Leadership” enhancement (§ 3B1.1(a)); Drug quantity finding; § 2D1.1(c)(4); “Threat of violence” enhancement (§ 2D1.1(b)(2)); Criminal history points

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court held that (1) the text messages the government offered at trial were properly admitted as “coconspirators’ statements,” (2) the evidence was sufficient to support defendant-Bell’s convictions on drug charges, and (3) he was not entitled to a new trial based on allegedly false testimony. It also rejected his sentencing challenges. A jury convicted Bell of conspiring to distribute drugs, possessing drugs with intent to distribute, and maintaining drug-distribution premises. He received a 336-month sentence, below the 360-month minimum Guidelines range. Bell had purchased an old motel from which he operated a drug and prostitution enterprise. He first argued that text messages introduced as coconspirators’ statements constituted hearsay and had not been authenticated. But the court held that they were properly admitted under FRE 801(d)(2)(e)(E) – statements “do not constitute hearsay if a coconspirator makes them ‘during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.’” It noted that Bell did not indicate “which of the hundreds of text messages he believes were improperly admitted or unauthenticated.” Rather, he asserted “‘many’ or ‘most’ of” them were arguably hearsay or unauthenticated. But courts are not required to search through “hundreds of text messages, which took days to present to the jury, occupy hundreds of pages of trial testimony, and whose foundation the government laid in a 230-page brief.” The court held that in any event, “‘[a]mple evidence showed that members of a conspiracy that included Bell sent and received the messages.” Further, the fact that some of the texts came from his victims did not prevent them from qualifying under the exemption. “Because the government presented evidence that Bell’s subordinate drug dealers and prostituted women sent the messages to advance the enterprise, they” met the standard. The court also found that the government “laid a strong foundation for authenticating the messages.” In addition, it held that the “evidence amply supported all three” of his convictions. As to his claim that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the emails he cited gave no reason to believe that the witness in question “lied at trial, much less that her lies affected the jury’s deliberations.” The court also upheld the district court’s sentencing rulings, including application of the enhancements for possessing a dangerous weapon, being in a leadership role, and threat of violence. Affirmed.