051761P.pdf   05/05/2006  United States  v.  Henry Ruiz
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  05-1761
                          and No:  05-2601
                          and No:  05-2088
                          and No:  05-1913
                          and No:  05-1805
                          and No:  05-1804
                          and No:  05-1762
   Western District of Missouri   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Murphy and Fagg, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - criminal law and sentencing. This opinion amends an
   opinion issued on May 1, 2006, and the opinion description can be found
   under the descriptions for that date. The amendment issued this date
   consists solely of the addition of a party to the caption. 
  
051761P.pdf   05/01/2006  United States  v.  Henry Ruiz
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  05-1761
                          and No:  05-2601
                          and No:  05-2088
                          and No:  05-1913
                          and No:  05-1805
                          and No:  05-1804
                          and No:  05-1762
   Western District of Missouri   
   [PUBLISHED] [Smith, Author, with Murphy and Fagg, Circuit Judges]
   Criminal case - criminal law and sentencing. Evidence was sufficient
   to support defendants' convictions on drug and firearms charges; juror
   bias was not established as juror was being truthful when she stated she
   did not know defendants and promptly notified court employees when she
   later deduced that she knew their mother and aunts; admission of edited
   or compiled video of sting operation identifying each defendant's
   individual actions was not error; no error in denying motion for
   severance; district court did not err in basing defendant Augustine's
   sentence on an amount of drugs larger than that he could have actually
   purchased with the money he brought to the buy, as the credit or
   "fronting" arrangement the government agents offered him was not
   artificially generous and came about as the result of bargaining about
   drug price and quantity; further, defendant failed to show he was
   predisposed to only deal in the smaller amount; district court did not err
   in computing the amount of drugs to be attributed to defendant Darks,
   and his sentence was non unreasonable.