USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 1 of 52
`
`
`[PUBLISH]
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`________________________
`
`No. 16-11358
`________________________
`
`D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00039-WLS-TQL-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`versus
`
`EDDIE LEE PERRY,
`CHAD RAGIN,
`
` Defendants - Appellants.
`
`________________________
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court
`for the Middle District of Georgia
`________________________
`
`(September 29, 2021)
`
`
`
`
`[PUBLISH]
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
`________________________
`
`No. 16-11358
`________________________
`
`D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cr-00039-WLS-TQL-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
`versus
`
`EDDIE LEE PERRY,
`CHAD RAGIN,
`
` Defendants - Appellants.
`
`________________________
`
`Appeals from the United States District Court
`for the Middle District of Georgia
`________________________
`
`(September 29, 2021)
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 2 of 52
`
`Before GRANT and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and AXON,* District Judge.
`
`MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
`
`In 2014, Eddie Lee Perry and Chad Ragin along with seven other co-
`
`defendants were indicted by a federal grand jury on numerous charges related to
`
`their involvement in a substantial multi-year, multi-state drug distribution
`
`organization operating primarily in southern Georgia. The core charge was that
`
`Perry, Ragin, and the others conspired to possess with intent to distribute in excess
`
`of five kilograms of cocaine and in excess of 280 grams of cocaine base. The
`
`charged conspiracy ran from January 2010 until the end of 2013. As part of an
`
`extended investigation, and with a series of court-ordered wiretaps in hand, the
`
`government intercepted thousands of cellular phone calls involving Perry, Ragin,
`
`and the other conspirators. Many of these conversations involved coded
`
`discussions about drugs. Some of the calls expressly referenced “coke jewel,”
`
`“powder,” and something “for the nose.” During the trial, the government
`
`introduced 100 of the calls through the testimony of its case agent, DEA task force
`
`officer Kevin Lee. The government also presented testimony from sixteen other
`
`witnesses and introduced Rule 404(b) evidence of other crimes, wrongs, and acts
`
`
`* Honorable Annemarie Axon, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama,
`sitting by designation.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 3 of 52
`
`against both Perry and Ragin. After seven days of trial, the jury convicted Perry
`
`and Ragin on all counts.
`
`In this consolidated appeal, Perry presents multiple challenges to his
`
`convictions, while Ragin attacks his sentence on several grounds. Perry focuses
`
`primarily on agent Lee’s testimony, arguing that the district court erroneously
`
`admitted it because Lee was not properly qualified as an expert, and that, in any
`
`event, the opinion testimony improperly blurred the line between expert and lay
`
`witness testimony and drew impermissible inferences for the jury. But after a
`
`thorough review of an extensive trial record, we are satisfied that Lee was properly
`
`qualified as an expert in interpreting code words for drugs, and that Perry has
`
`failed to establish that he was substantially prejudiced by any offending comments
`
`Lee offered. Similarly, we conclude that Ragin’s challenges to his sentence are
`
`without merit. We affirm.
`
`I.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 4 of 52
`
`In early 2013, Drug Enforcement Administration and local law enforcement
`
`agencies in southwest Georgia and Miami, Florida jointly began an extensive
`
`investigation involving a large cocaine distribution scheme. As part of this
`
`inquiry, between April and June 2013, the agents obtained three 30-day court-
`
`authorized interceptions of calls on a cell phone used by Perry. During this period,
`
`the agents intercepted thousands of calls, including many discussing drug
`
`production and sales. Information drawn from the Perry wiretaps led to court-
`
`authorized spinoff wiretaps, including one in December 2013, which focused on
`
`Roger Ross, who was Perry’s source of cocaine.
`
`Many of the calls ranged from discussions about cooking cocaine to setting
`
`up potential sales. Three calls from April 13, 2013 are illustrative. The day started
`
`with a call between Perry and Odell Cleveland (a named co-conspirator). Among
`
`other things, Perry told Cleveland that he had “that Lulu for your ass,” using the
`
`code word “Lulu” for powder cocaine. Perry then called Joseph Davenport (also a
`
`named co-conspirator) and told him that they needed to meet. Shortly thereafter,
`
`Perry spoke to Ross, his Miami supplier, and said that the powder cocaine was
`
`“good” and “dropping dem draws quick.” At trial, Kevin Lee -- who was the
`
`narcotics and vice commander of the Thomas County Sheriff’s Office, a task force
`
`officer working with the DEA, and the chief investigator in this case -- testified
`
`that “dropping dem draws quick” meant it was “easy to convert [] from powder
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 5 of 52
`
`cocaine into crack cocaine.” Ross then asked Perry if he wanted “some more” and
`
`Perry said yes. Perry also told Ross that “Ole Bro Bro he fixing to come get at me
`
`. . . so Imma need.” Agent Lee testified that “Ole Bro Bro” referred to Joseph
`
`Davenport (a named co-conspirator and co-defendant) and that Perry was telling
`
`Ross he would need more cocaine in the future. On the same call, Ross told Perry
`
`that he was going to “have nephew do that and . . . hit ya up . . . later on.” Agent
`
`Lee offered that “nephew” referred to Ross’s cousin1 and courier, Chad Ragin,
`
`who would deliver more cocaine.
`
`The intercepted telephone calls also led to the arrests of several co-
`
`conspirators and the seizure of drugs and money. Thus, for example, on May 4,
`
`2013, the wiretap surveillance team intercepted a phone call between Perry and
`
`Davenport. The two co-conspirators discussed their progress getting “one” from
`
`an unnamed man, which they could sell and charge “14 to make [] a dollar a
`
`piece.” Agent Lee testified that the men were discussing buying one ounce of
`
`powder cocaine from Vert Washington (another co-conspirator) and selling it for
`
`$1,400, in order to make $100 each. On May 16, agent Lee received a call from an
`
`informant, who led Lee to a convenience store parking lot where Davenport and
`
`Washington were sitting in a vehicle. When agent Lee arrived, after obtaining
`
`
`1 In a written statement following his arrest, Ragin refers to Ross as his cousin. However, at
`several points in the taped conversations and at trial, Ragin is referred to as Ross’s nephew.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 6 of 52
`
`consent to search, he found in the vehicle in plain view a cardboard tube containing
`
`three or four bags of cocaine. The next day, the team intercepted another call from
`
`Davenport to Perry. During the call, Davenport explained that he and Washington
`
`had been stopped by the police and that the police had found, and seized, cocaine --
`
`specifically “[a]bout three halves and . . . some powder” -- from the vehicle.
`
`Later that month, the surveillance team intercepted telephone calls between
`
`Perry and Darnel Anderson.2 In one call, on May 28, 2013, Anderson asked Perry
`
`to bring “two by here,” which, agent Lee later explained, referred to two circles of
`
`crack cocaine. The next day, Anderson called Perry again and told him to “go
`
`ahead bring me another.” The same day, the team received a tip that Perry would
`
`be making a drug delivery to an unknown buyer. Dewayne Pearson, an
`
`investigator with the Cairo, Georgia Police Department, set up surveillance near
`
`Perry’s residence and followed him to a car wash, where Perry met with Anderson.
`
`Pearson saw the two men enter a building for roughly five minutes before walking
`
`back to Perry’s truck. Perry reached for something inside his truck and then
`
`returned to the building with Anderson for a few more minutes. Perry left, and
`
`“just moments” later, police returned to the car wash with a warrant for Anderson’s
`
`arrest. As Anderson fled the scene, a pursuing officer saw him throw a shoe box
`
`
`2 Darnel Anderson died prior to Perry and Ragin’s trial.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 7 of 52
`
`onto the roof of a nearby residence. When the box was recovered, the officer
`
`found over 95 grams of crack cocaine inside.
`
`In December 2013, the team intercepted phone calls between Perry and Ross
`
`that discussed Perry’s efforts to collect money he owed to Ross. During one of
`
`them, on December 16, 2013, Perry explained that “it’s slow motion around here”
`
`and that he wasn’t where he “need[ed] to be,” which agent Lee told the jury meant
`
`that Perry hadn’t collected enough money to repay Ross. Ross pushed back,
`
`offering that Perry was making Ross look “real, real, real shady right now,” and
`
`that “this cat” was calling him “six or seven times, back to back, back to back,
`
`back to back.” Agent Lee explained that Ross was “looking bad to his source of
`
`supply” because Ross couldn’t pay. Perry responded that Ross should “just let him
`
`know everybody okay it’s just slow.”
`
`The next day, the team intercepted a call between Ross and Ragin. This
`
`time, Ragin asked Ross if he’d spoken to Perry and the two discussed Ragin’s plan
`
`to travel to Cairo, Georgia. Then, on December 21, Ross called Perry again,
`
`asking about the money Perry owed him. Perry told Ross that he had “a dub,” or
`
`$20,000, as Lee explained it. Ross expressed disappointment with the amount, but
`
`said he had “to get whatever [he] can get . . . right now.” The next day, Ross
`
`called Perry to tell him that Ragin would be driving from Miami to Cairo in order
`
`to collect the money. During this call, Perry told Ross that he was placing tape
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 8 of 52
`
`around the cash and the sound of wrapping tape around the money could be heard
`
`on the phone call.
`
`That day, December 22, law enforcement agents surveilled Perry’s residence
`
`in Cairo, Georgia. They spotted Ragin’s vehicle. On his way back to Florida,
`
`Ragin was pulled over for speeding while driving through southern Georgia.
`
`Officers discovered in the car a package wrapped in duct tape containing $18,870
`
`in cash, and another $840 in cash on Ragin’s person. Ragin followed the agents
`
`back to the station in his own car, but had the presence of mind to call Ross on the
`
`way, explaining that he (Ragin) had been stopped by the police and that he
`
`believed “they watching that boy[’s] house,” or that the police were watching
`
`Perry’s residence. Ross then called Perry in order to warn him to “keep [his] eyes
`
`open” and “look[] out” and described the cash seizure.
`
`At the police station, Ragin told the agents that the cash was his, but that he
`
`earned the money by selling cars. The government later initiated forfeiture
`
`proceedings against the money, prompting Ragin to produce an affidavit from
`
`Nader Aweidh, who swore that he purchased a vehicle from Ragin for $20,000.
`
`However, the team intercepted a series of phone calls between Ross and Ragin
`
`discussing different explanations for the money. For example, during one call
`
`Ross told Ragin that they could find “somebody that could come back and say that,
`
`hey look I loaned him this money to go ahead and try to get a car that he wanted.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 9 of 52
`
`Ragin then proposed to “say it’s my money” because “I got the lawsuit.” At trial,
`
`Aweidh testified, for the government, that his affidavit was not true and that he
`
`only signed it “as a favor” to Ragin.
`
`On September 11, 2014, a federal grand jury sitting in the Middle District of
`
`Georgia charged Eddie Lee Perry, Ragin, Ross, Davenport, Washington,
`
`Cleveland, and three other co-conspirators -- Xavier Jordan, Brandon Perry,3 and
`
`Michael Perry4 -- with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and
`
`crack cocaine beginning on or about January 1, 2010, and continuing until on or
`
`about December 31, 2013, “the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury,” in
`
`violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), 846. Perry was also
`
`charged in thirteen substantive counts with the use of a communication facility in
`
`furtherance of a drug crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b). Ragin was charged
`
`in two additional counts with the use of a communication facility in furtherance of
`
`a drug crime, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b); one count of conspiring to falsify
`
`records in a federal investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 in connection
`
`with 18 U.S.C. § 1519; and two substantive counts of falsifying records, in
`
`violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519.
`
`
`3 Brandon Perry is Eddie Lee Perry’s son.
`
` Michael Perry is Eddie Lee Perry’s brother.
`
`9
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 10 of 52
`
`Perry, Ragin, and Davenport were tried together in a case that lasted seven
`
`days.5 The tapes from the government’s wiretap made up the vast majority of the
`
`evidence presented and included 76 calls intercepted from Perry’s cell phone and
`
`24 additional cellular phone calls intercepted from Ross’s phone. Notably, the
`
`defendants did not object to the introduction of almost all of these phone calls.
`
`Counsel for Perry raised one hearsay objection to one phone call Perry received
`
`from Dexter Young on April 18, 2013. He claimed that Young was not present in
`
`court and would not testify, therefore the entire conversation was inadmissible
`
`hearsay. The district court overruled the objection. Other than this one hearsay
`
`claim, no other objections were raised to the admissibility of the other 99 recorded
`
`conversations.6
`
`The government’s main witness was agent Lee, who testified at considerable
`
`length. Agent Lee was qualified as an expert “in coded drug language and
`
`methods of trafficking, as well as the manufacture of crack cocaine from powder
`
`cocaine.” As we’ve described, the government introduced 100 tape recorded
`
`conversations into evidence along with transcripts during the course of Lee’s
`
`testimony. When relevant, he was asked about and opined on the meaning of
`
`
`5 Ross and the others were tried separately.
`
` 6
`
` After the calls were admitted, Perry’s counsel objected to the government’s questioning of
`agent Lee concerning two calls between Perry and individuals not named in the indictment,
`arguing that the calls were not relevant. The district court overruled both objections.
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 11 of 52
`
`certain drug “code” words used by Perry and the others. Perry’s counsel objected
`
`to the scope of Lee’s testimony only one time, when Lee testified about a call
`
`between Perry and Ross on December 16, 2013. Perry claimed that Lee’s
`
`testimony invaded “the purview of the jury” by interpreting common English. The
`
`district court overruled the objection. Perry’s counsel offered another objection to
`
`Lee’s testimony on the ground that he was speculating about the meaning of one
`
`conversation, but did not argue that this testimony invaded the province of the jury.
`
`The government also introduced Rule 404(b) crimes, wrongs, or acts
`
`evidence for both Perry and Ragin, involving events that fell outside the timeframe
`
`of the charged conspiracy. For Perry, the government moved to introduce the
`
`factual basis surrounding his earlier federal conviction for the distribution of crack
`
`cocaine in southern Georgia. Perry objected, arguing that the evidence was unduly
`
`prejudicial and would “give[] an unfair advantage[]” to the government. The
`
`district court disagreed, finding that the probative value of the evidence was not
`
`outweighed by the danger of undue prejudice. But, to limit any prejudicial impact,
`
`the court directed the parties to omit any reference to Perry having been convicted
`
`or having entered a guilty plea.
`
`While Perry disagreed with the district court’s ruling, he agreed that the
`
`following stipulation conformed to the district court’s ruling about what limited
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 12 of 52
`
`information could be included in the 404(b) proffer. The stipulation provided to
`
`the jury read this way:
`
`Members of the jury, the United States and the Defendant Perry
`stipulate and agree that Defendant Perry made the following sworn
`statement in a prior court proceeding: “From on or about January 1,
`1996, to on or about April 3, 2004, Eddie Lee Perry, Jr. was involved
`in the distribution of multi-ounce quantities of crack cocaine. During
`this timeframe, the Defendant was supplied with cocaine by various
`sources which included Michael Tise. The defendant sold crack
`cocaine at various locations in the Cairo, Georgia area.
`
`On April 3, 2004, Terrence Williams under the control of law
`enforcement made a controlled buy of cocaine base and cocaine from
`the defendant, Eddie Lee Perry, Jr. The buy was preserved on audio
`tape. The cocaine base purchased from the defendant on this date
`tested positive for a total of 93.4 grams and the cocaine tested positive
`for a total of 134.4 grams.
`
`After the sale on April 3, 2004 was consummated the officers
`converged at 1137 11th Street, Cairo, Georgia and arrested Eddie Lee
`Perry, Jr. The officers recovered the buy money that Williams used to
`obtain the cocaine from Perry, Jr. The officer[s] executed a search at
`212 Humble Street, the home of Eddie Lee Perry, Jr[.] and recovered
`numerous boxes of sandwich baggies, two cups containing cocaine
`residue and a scale.
`
`As for Ragin, the government’s Rule 404(b) evidence related to his arrest in
`
`
`
`this case, which occurred on September 23, 2014, at his home in Florida. During
`
`the arrest, law enforcement agents discovered 890 grams of cocaine, 947 grams of
`
`heroin, and two handguns. They also found a bag containing drug paraphernalia,
`
`including a money counter and scales, and over $16,000. After being arrested,
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 13 of 52
`
`Ragin made an inculpatory statement that was received in evidence against him.
`
`Ragin admitted that he held the drugs for co-defendant Ross:
`
`The cocaine and heroin you found at my house belongs to my cousin,
`Roger Ross. Ross paid me to keep it for him. I placed the cocaine
`and heroin where you found it. He gave me a whole key (kilogram)
`of cocaine. He gave me more than the amount of heroin. He comes
`over and gets ounces of heroin at a time. I’ve been keeping cocaine
`and heroin at my house for Roger Ross for about two or three months.
`Roger has given me 3 kilos of heroin and one [kilo] of cocaine to keep
`for him.
`
`The jury found Perry, Ragin, and Davenport guilty on all counts. It returned
`
`a special verdict, finding that Perry conspired with the intent to distribute cocaine
`
`weighing more than 5 kilograms and cocaine base weighing more than 280 grams,
`
`and that Ragin conspired with the intent to distribute cocaine weighing less than
`
`500 grams. Perry was sentenced to 240 months in prison on the conspiracy count,
`
`and 96 months on the remaining counts, to run concurrently for a total sentence of
`
`240 months. The court also imposed a mandatory assessment of $1,400 and a ten-
`
`year period of supervised release.
`
`At Ragin’s sentencing, the district court considered the drugs and guns
`
`found during Ragin’s arrest as “relevant conduct” under the Sentencing Guidelines,
`
`yielding a total offense level of 34 and a sentencing range of 168 to 210 months.7
`
`The court sentenced Ragin to 180 months’ imprisonment on the conspiracy count;
`
`
`7 The probation officer explained at the hearing that without this enhancement, Ragin would
`have a total offense level of 28 and a sentencing range of 87 to 108 months’ imprisonment.
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 14 of 52
`
`96 months in prison on the two communication counts; and 60 months on the
`
`counts related to the falsification of records. The sentences on each of the counts
`
`were to run concurrently, yielding a total prison term of 180 months. Additionally,
`
`the court imposed a mandatory assessment of $600 and a six-year period of
`
`supervised release.
`
`This consolidated appeal followed.
`
`II.
`
`A.
`
`Perry raises several claims concerning the admissibility of the expert
`
`testimony of agent Kevin Lee. Perry argues that the district court erroneously
`
`qualified Lee as an expert in coded drug language, and that Lee improperly offered
`
`opinion testimony beyond his expert knowledge. In the process, he wrongfully
`
`invaded the province of the jury. We are unpersuaded.
`
`We review a district court’s evidentiary decisions concerning the
`
`admissibility of expert testimony for abuse of discretion, which means we will not
`
`reverse unless the ruling is “manifestly erroneous.” United States v. Barton, 909
`
`F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244,
`
`1259 (11th Cir. 2004) (en banc)). Federal Rule of Evidence 702 controls the
`
`admissibility of expert testimony. The trial court is required to consider whether:
`
`(1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters
`he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 15 of 52
`
`reaches his conclusions is sufficiently reliable as determined by the
`sort of inquiry mandated in Daubert; and (3) the testimony assists the
`trier of fact, through the application of scientific, technical, or
`specialized expertise, to understand the evidence or to determine a
`fact in issue.
`
`Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1260.
`
`In United States v. Holt, we “affirmed the admission of expert testimony by
`
`law enforcement officers interpreting drug codes and jargon.” 777 F.3d 1234,
`
`1265 (11th Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). In that case, the defendant lodged a
`
`similar objection to the qualification of the government’s lead agent as an expert
`
`witness offering opinion testimony about coded drug language. Id. at 1250–51.
`
`We held that the district court did not err in admitting the agent’s expert testimony
`
`because the trial court found she was qualified “based on, most notably, her
`
`extensive involvement in this particular investigation . . . as well as her training,
`
`experience in previous wiretaps, and general investigative experience during her
`
`six years as a DEA Agent.” Id. at 1265. The agent formed her opinions “based on
`
`her training, experience, discussions with cooperating co-conspirators, general
`
`knowledge of common drug prices and quantities, review of nearly all of the
`
`communications in this case, and the context of each particular communication.”
`
`Id. at 1265–66.
`
`So too here. Like the lead agent in Holt, agent Lee had substantial
`
`experience in narcotics investigations -- he worked in law enforcement for 19 years
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 16 of 52
`
`and participated in thousands of narcotics investigations, he interviewed thousands
`
`of defendants and confidential informants, and assisted in numerous wiretap
`
`investigations which led him to review literally thousands of recorded
`
`conversations. And like the agent in Holt, agent Lee formed his opinions using
`
`reliable methods and based on a combination of experience, general knowledge,
`
`and familiarity with the intercepted communications and their context. Finally,
`
`Lee reviewed all of the germane conversations about the distribution of drugs
`
`drawn from the Perry wiretaps.
`
`Perry argues, nevertheless, that agent Lee’s expertise does not meet the
`
`requirements of Rule 702 because it was based solely on knowledge he gained as a
`
`case agent in this case. Perry says that when agent Lee was asked how he
`
`determined the meaning of code words, he explained that he did so “[b]ased on the
`
`investigation that we’re doing at that time and what we have learned.” But Perry
`
`cherry-picks from among many of agent Lee’s statements. Lee also testified that
`
`he had worked “almost exclusively with narcotics-related investigations” for
`
`almost twenty years, participating in “thousands” of such investigations, and that
`
`60 to 70 percent of those investigations involved cocaine. He explained that he
`
`developed substantial expertise in code words by conducting thousands of
`
`interviews with defendants and cooperating sources, observing that it was “through
`
`these types of information [that he had] learned some code words associated with
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 17 of 52
`
`drug trafficking.” Lee also testified that he stayed informed of “what people are
`
`doing in our community, what phrases they’re using, the dollar amounts of
`
`purchases . . . If we’re doing an investigation, we may send a text or record a
`
`conversation, so we see the actual words that they are using.” Although agent Lee
`
`answered one question by focusing on his knowledge drawn from this
`
`investigation, we cannot say that it was manifestly erroneous for the trial court to
`
`qualify him as an expert on coded drug language given the entirety of his ample
`
`experience. No other challenges were raised against Lee’s expertise concerning
`
`methods of trafficking and the manufacture of crack cocaine from powder cocaine.
`
`
`
`Perry also claims that Lee’s testimony invaded the province of the jury
`
`because he offered opinions about matters that went beyond his “expert”
`
`knowledge. At trial, the government used agent Lee’s testimony to introduce
`
`audio recordings and transcripts of the 100 intercepted phone calls from the
`
`wiretaps of Perry and Ross. When the conversation included “code,” the
`
`government would ask Lee questions about the meaning of words in the recording.
`
`The following exchange about a conversation between Perry and co-conspirator
`
`Odell Cleveland on April 13, 2013, is representative:
`
`Q: And if we could scroll down just a little bit here on page one in
`the transcript, you see there where it’s entered: I got that Lulu
`for your ass, boy? . . . Now, in the context of this conversation,
`do you believe you understand what the word Lulu means,
`based on your training and experience?
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 18 of 52
`
`A: Yes, ma’am. He’s talking about . . . high quality cocaine.
`
`Q: And what is the basis for your opinion that Lulu refers to high
`quality cocaine?
`
`
`A: A lot of times they call powder cocaine a female, that girl, that
`lady, that bitch. So they’re referring to a female when they refer
`to the powder.
`
`
`It is well established that “deciphering of coded language is helpful to the
`
`jury and therefore permissible.” United States v. Hawkins, 934 F.3d 1251, 1264
`
`(11th Cir. 2019). Throughout his testimony, agent Lee offered an opinion on a
`
`variety of terms that were code words for drugs, including “lulu,” “teenager,” “best
`
`girl in town,” “biscuit head,” “something for the nose,” “gator,” “zip,” and “zone.”
`
`He also testified about the meaning of terms that referred to the quantity of drugs
`
`and their price, such as “dubs,” “a G,” “a little two-dollar lick,” “a cookie,” and a
`
`“ticket,” as well as terms that referred to a drug’s quality, such as “loud,” “French
`
`fries,” and “straight,” and even terms related to drug sales, such as “coke jewel.”
`
`This testimony was well within the scope of his expertise and was properly
`
`admitted. See United States v. Emmanuel, 565 F.3d 1324, 1336 (11th Cir. 2009).
`
`
`
`In other instances, agent Lee’s testimony went further, discussing the
`
`meaning of ordinary English words and phrases that came up on the tapes or
`
`offering opinions based on what certain language meant in the context of the
`
`investigation. Thus, for example, in regard to a conversation between Perry and
`
`Dexter Young on April 22, 2013:
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 19 of 52
`
`Q: Now, early on in that conversation, Agent Lee, Mr. Young
`makes the statement: I ain’t making no money like this and you
`ain’t either, I mean. . . . [T]ell the ladies and gentlemen of the
`jury what you believe that means?
`
`
`A: Again, this is referring to the two ounces that Mr. Young had
`purchased from Mr. Perry and where he couldn’t make it --
`convert it into crack cocaine like he wanted, and that’s when
`Mr. Davenport was called over and they corrected one that we
`talked about earlier. And he’s saying that he’s not messed with
`the other one, so he’s not being able to convert the powder into
`crack, so he’s not making any money.
`
`
`And in another instance about a call between Perry and Ross on December 16,
`
`2013:
`
`Q: Mr. Ross says: Got me looking real crazy, man. Do you have an
`
`understanding of what that means?
`
`A: Yes, ma’am. Because his people are putting pressure on him to
`pay them the money. And when I’m saying “he” I’m talking
`about Mr. Ross -- for Mr. Ross to pay his people back their
`money.
`
`
`Notably, Perry only objected to the scope of agent Lee’s testimony one time,
`
`on the third day of his testimony,8 in response to Lee’s testimony about Ross
`
`looking “real crazy.” Perry’s counsel argued:
`
`Some of this -- I know he’s an expert in some of the street lingo, but
`some of this goes into the purview of the jury to decide what common,
`common phrases, common parlance means. He[’s] taking away from
`the jury the -- interjecting his thoughts about every single word that
`goes beyond what his expertise is, so I would object to this.
`
`
`8 Lee did not testify for the entirety of each day. Lee was excused on the third day of his
`testimony after testifying about the Georgia wiretap and was recalled later the same day to testify
`about the Florida wiretap.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 20 of 52
`
`
`The government responded that “there’s a lot of things that crazy could mean in
`
`the common parlance, but I’m asking this witness if it has a specific meaning in the
`
`drug context.” The district court overruled the objection, and instructed the jury
`
`that “certain witnesses can testify as experts, but it’s for you to determine whether
`
`to accept their testimony as to what weight to give it.” Perry did not object again
`
`to the scope of Lee’s testimony.
`
`At oral argument, Perry conceded that his single objection was insufficient
`
`to preserve the issue for abuse-of-discretion review and so plain error review
`
`applies. See Hawkins, 934 F.3d at 1264. Plain error review affords us “only a
`
`limited power to correct errors that were forfeited.” United States v. Rodriguez,
`
`398 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation omitted). A defendant
`
`must establish three conditions before a court may consider exercising its
`
`discretion to correct an error: “First, there must be an error that has not been
`
`intentionally relinquished or abandoned. Second, the error must be plain -- that is
`
`to say, clear or obvious. Third, the error must have affected the defendant’s
`
`substantial rights.” Rosales-Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897, 1904 (2018)
`
`(internal quotation omitted). To establish that the error affected his substantial
`
`rights, “the defendant ordinarily must show a reasonable probability that, but for
`
`the error, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 1904–
`
`05 (internal quotation omitted). Only after all three conditions are met may the
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`USCA11 Case: 16-11358 Date Filed: 09/29/2021 Page: 21 of 52
`
`court “exercise its discretion to correct the forfeited error if the error seriously
`
`affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at
`
`1905 (internal quotation omitted); see also Rodriguez, 398 F.3d at 1298.
`
`Perry has failed to establish plain error. As for the first two prongs of the
`
`plain error test, we recognize that there are some parts of agent Lee’s testimony
`
`that were plainly improper -- where he crossed the line from interpreting coded
`
`drug language to opining about plain language, speculating, summarizing the
`
`evidence or telling the jury what inferences to draw from the co
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
