United States v. Velazquez Hernandez

── United States v. Velazquez Hernandez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 24-6244 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 28, 2026 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 24-6244 (D.C. No. 5:24-CR-00015-HE-1) SIMON VELAZQUEZ HERNANDEZ, (W.D. Okla.) Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before ROSSMAN, MURPHY, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Simon Velazquez Hernandez 1 appeals his conviction after a jury trial for possessing methamphetamine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He argues the district court erred by refusing to admit certain statements at trial in the form of video recordings under Federal Rule of Evidence 106. Because Mr. Hernandez did not preserve this issue * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and 10th Circuit Rule 32.1. 1 We refer to the Appellant as Mr. Hernandez. He testified that he prefers this name.  Appellate Case: 24-6244 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 2 before the district court, we review only for plain error. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm. I A2 Early one morning in December 2023, Oklahoma City Police Sergeant Charles Seale stopped Mr. Hernandez for speeding on the I-40. He grew “suspicious fairly quickly into the stop” based on Mr. Hernandez’s inconsistent “story” and items he saw in the car, including a radar detector. RIII.43–47, 51, 68. Sergeant Seale asked Mr. Hernandez to exit the vehicle and placed him in the back seat of his police car. He then “conduct[ed] [his] law enforcement checks” and summoned a canine unit to “do a sniff” of Mr. Hernandez’s car. RIII.46. The dog “pretty quickly alerted to the odor of narcotics[.]” RIII.47. Mr. Hernandez ultimately consented to a search of the car. Officers found thirty-eight bundles of methamphetamine in the factory void of the center console. 3 2 “Our summary of the factual background is based on the evidence presented at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” United States v. Dermen, 143 F.4th 1148, 1164 n.1 (10th Cir. 2025). 3 The “net weight” of the methamphetamine was “just under” seventeen kilograms and had an approximate wholesale value of “just over” $54,000. RIII.102–03, 105. At trial, the parties stipulated the bundles “contain[ed] a substance with a net weight, excluding packaging, of 16,907 (continued) 2  Appellate Case: 24-6244 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 Page: 3 Sergeant Seale arrested Mr. Hernandez and drove him to the police station. During the transport, Mr. Hernandez, seated in the backseat, became “very emotional” and expressed