## Facts

- Federal authorities investigated two Oklahoma City convenience stores for sales of pseudoephedrine products in quantities consistent with methamphetamine production.
- Sonny Lee Tran and Nga (“Tanya”) Tran operated Sonny’s Express Grocery; Huong Muessig later sold pseudoephedrine at another store during the investigation period.
- An undercover detective repeatedly purchased pseudoephedrine in unusual patterns (multiple sequential purchases) and in large quantities, often at prices above ordinary retail.
- Evidence showed Nga Tran received warnings from a supplier and a family member not to sell large quantities because the product could be used to manufacture methamphetamine.
- The undercover detective told Nga Tran he used pseudoephedrine to manufacture methamphetamine and described why bottles were preferred over blister packs for processing large quantities.
- Both Nga Tran and Muessig expressed fear the buyer might be law enforcement and that the sales could lead to jail, but continued selling.
- Over roughly two weeks, Muessig sold the undercover detective 3,024 pseudoephedrine pills, characterized at trial as far beyond normal cold-medicine use.
- Witnesses testified Muessig knew pseudoephedrine was a precursor chemical used to manufacture methamphetamine.
- All three defendants were convicted in the Western District of Oklahoma under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2) for distributing pseudoephedrine knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Muessig and Nga Tran distributed pseudoephedrine with “reasonable cause to believe” it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2).
2. Whether the district court erred by admitting undercover-officer testimony allegedly based on information not disclosed pretrial, and whether any discovery violation was prejudicial.
3. Whether a mistrial was required after an unadmitted exhibit was inadvertently sent to the jury room, despite a curative instruction.
4. Whether cumulative error required reversal of Sonny Tran’s conviction.
5. Whether Muessig was entitled to resentencing under Booker for unpreserved Guidelines error.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions of Muessig, Sonny Tran, and Nga Tran.
- The court held the evidence permitted a rational jury to find Muessig and Nga Tran had at least “reasonable cause to believe” the pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture methamphetamine.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting the undercover officer’s testimony because the defendant did not show prejudice from any alleged nondisclosure.
- The court upheld denial of a mistrial; removal of the unadmitted exhibit and a curative instruction were sufficient, and prejudice was not shown.
- The court rejected cumulative-error relief because there were not multiple actual, harmful errors.
- The court affirmed Muessig’s sentence, concluding she failed under plain-error review to show a reasonable probability of a lower sentence under an advisory Guidelines regime.

## Legal Principles

- Under 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(2), the government must prove distribution of a listed chemical with knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe, it will be used to manufacture a controlled substance.
- Sufficiency review asks whether, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the government, any rational juror could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- “Reasonable cause to believe” may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including bulk and repetitive sales inconsistent with legitimate use, above-retail pricing, explicit warnings about illicit use, direct statements of intended methamphetamine manufacture, and seller conduct showing awareness of illegality.
- Discovery and evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal requires a showing of prejudice affecting substantial rights.
- When jurors are exposed to an unadmitted item, a prompt curative instruction generally cures the error; juries are presumed to follow instructions absent a strong showing of prejudicial impact.
- Cumulative-error relief requires at least two actual errors that, together, render the trial unfair.
- Unpreserved Booker claims are reviewed for plain error; the defendant must show a reasonable probability of a different sentence under advisory Guidelines.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the defendants’ § 841(c)(2) convictions, holding the jury could infer the required mental state from the volume, pattern, and circumstances of pseudoephedrine sales and the defendants’ warnings and reactions, and it found no reversible trial error or basis for resentencing under Booker.


United States v. Muessig, 427 F.3d 856 (10th Cir. 2005)