united states v. nieves-canales, 1st cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 United States v. Nieves-Canales, 1st Cir. (2015)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-nieves-canales-1st-cir-2015 1/34

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 11- 232812- 144212- 2412

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

RAMÓN LANZA- VÁZQUEZ, a/ k/ a Ramonci t o;

LUI S R. NI EVES- CANALES, a/ k/ a Si t o;RAFAEL GALÁN- OLAVARRÍ A, a/ k/ a Gal án,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Ai da M. Del gado- Col ón, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Howard, Chi ef J udge, Tor r uel l a and Kayat t a, Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d Shaughnessy f or appel l ant Raf ael Gal án- Ol avar r í a.Lydi a Li zar r í bar - Masi ni f or appel l ant Lui s Ni eves- Canal es.I nga L. Par sons f or appel l ant Ramón Lanza- Vázquez.

Ol ga B. Cast el l ón- Mi r anda, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,wi t h whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr í guez- Vél ez, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney,Nel son Pér ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef ,Appel l at e Di vi si on, and J uan Car l os Reyes- Ramos, Assi st ant Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.



August 27, 2015



HOWARD, Chief Judge. Ramón Lanza- Vázquez ( "Lanza") , Lui s

R. Ni eves- Canal es ( "Ni eves" ) , and Raf ael Gal án- Ol avar r í a ( "Gal án" ) ,

( col l ect i vel y, "t he def endant s") , appeal convi ct i ons and sent ences

r esul t i ng f r om t hei r par t i ci pat i on i n a dr ug di str i but i on

conspi r acy. They l odge a l i t any of chal l enges cover i ng near l y

ever y aspect of t he pr oceedi ngs bel ow. Fi ndi ng no r ever si bl e

er r or , we af f i r m.

I.

We begi n by br i ef l y sket chi ng t he f act s most r el evant t o

our anal ysi s. 1

A. The Drug-Trafficking Operation

Thi s case ar i ses f r oma dr ug t r af f i cki ng oper at i on at t he

J ar di nes de Sel l és Housi ng Pr oj ect i n San J uan, Puer t o Ri co

( "Sel l és" ) . On J anuar y 26, 2000, t he l eader of t hat oper at i on,

Lui s Dani el Ri ver a, was mur der ed. Thi s cr eat ed a l eader shi p

vacuum, whi ch Al ber t o Car i l l o- Mor al es ( "Al f al f a") swi f t l y moved t o

f i l l . Wi t hi n t wo days, he had succeeded i n t aki ng cont r ol .

Upon taki ng power , Al f al f a adopt ed an unf or gi vi ng and

oppr essi ve management st yl e. He hel d r egul ar meet i ngs wi t h hi s

1 The backgr ound f act s of t he conspi r acy and t he def endant s'

r ol es i n t he conspi r acy ar e r el evant t o Ni eves' suf f i ci ency of t heevi dence chal l enge. We t her ef ore vi ew t hem i n t he l i ght mostf avor abl e t o t he j ur y ver di ct . See Uni t ed St at es v. Bur gos, 703F. 3d 1, 4 n. 1 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . We consi der t he r emai ni ng f act s - -t hose rel evant t o t he remai ni ng chal l enges t hat we di scuss i n t hi sopi ni on - - i n a "bal anced" manner . See Uni t ed St at es v. Bur gos-Mont es, 786 F. 3d 92, 99 ( 1st Ci r . 2015) .

-3-



cl osest co- conspi r at or s t o di scuss t he oper at i on and t o pl ot

st r at egy. I f an i ndi vi dual sol d dr ugs at Sel l és, he or she was

doi ng so on Al f al f a' s behal f or wi t h hi s bl essi ng. I ndeed, t he

j ur y coul d have concl uded t hat Al f al f a woul d or der hi s gang t o ki l l

or har many i ndi vi dual who ei t her di sobeyed that r ul e or who mer el y

expr essed di sagr eement wi t h hi s deci si ons.

As f or t he dr ug busi ness i t sel f , Al f al f a i mpl ement ed a

number of changes. The j ur y hear d evi dence t hat Al f al f a i nst i t ut ed

a hi er ar chi cal syst em: dr ug "owner s" wer e r esponsi bl e f or obt ai ni ng

dr ugs ( and benef i t t ed most f r om t he sal es) ; " r unner s" t r anspor t ed

t he dr ugs and money f r om owner t o sel l er ; and "sel l er s" posi t i oned

t hemsel ves at drug poi nt s t o di st r i but e t he goods. "Enf or cer s"

wer e al so t asked wi t h pr ot ect i ng t he dr ug poi nt s at Sel l és, whi ch

oper ated 24 hour s a day. Rel atedl y, Al f al f a expanded t he number of

dr ug poi nt s at Sel l és, and hi s subor di nat es sol d a var i et y of dr ugs

i ncl udi ng cr ack cocai ne, powder cocai ne, her oi n, and mar i j uana.

The bags cont ai ni ng hi s dr ugs t ypi cal l y i ncl uded a st i cker bear i ng

t he f ace of Osama Bi n Laden.

Af t er t i ght eni ng hi s gr i p on power at home, Al f al f a

t ur ned out wards. Ar ound 2004, Al f al f a order ed hi s men, armed wi t h

guns, t o take over t he oper at i on at t he El Pr ado housi ng uni t .

They successf ul l y di d so. Ar ound t he same t i me, he t ook over Las

Fl or es, a housi ng pr oj ect i n near by Ai boni t o. He al so br i ef l y t ook

cont r ol of t he Li bor i o Or t i z Housi ng Pr oj ect. These t er r i t or i al

-4-



gr abs consi st ent l y i gni t ed shoot i ngs and f i ght s among t he di f f er ent

dr ug- t r ade or gani zat i ons.

B. The Defendants

The t hr ee def endant s i n t hi s case each j oi ned Al f al f a' s

oper at i on at di f f er ent t i mes and i n di st i nct ways. For i nst ance,

t he j ury coul d have f ound t hat Def endant Ni eves was one of

Al f al f a' s i ni t i al co- conspi r at or s. Fr om t he begi nni ng, he was a

dr ug owner ; he speci f i cal l y owned t he "$12 bag" of mar i j uana. I n

addi t i on t o sel l i ng t hat pr oduct at Sel l és, he ser ved as an

enf or cer and pr ot ect or at dr ug poi nt s. Al t hough he l awf ul l y

possessed a number of guns, he al so car r i ed sever al i l l egal

f i r ear ms. Mor eover , he par t i ci pat ed i n shoot i ngs wi t h r i val gangs

when i t sui t ed hi s boss' s i nt er est s.

The evi dence l i kewi se suppor t ed t he f i ndi ng t hat

Def endant Gal án j oi ned Al f al f a' s oper at i on as a sel l er at Sel l és.

Ear l y on, he expr essed an i nt er est i n r i si ng t hr ough t he r anks of

t he or gani zat i on, as he want ed t o become a dr ug owner hi msel f .

Al f al f a' s expansi on i nt o El Pr ado pr ovi ded Gal án wi t h t hat

oppor t uni t y. He became an owner of a brand of mar i j uana at El

Pr ado and enl i st ed J osé Ser r ano- Ayuso ( "Ser r ano") t o serve as hi s

r unner . The t wo met ni ght l y at Gal án' s apar t ment , where Ser r ano

woul d del i ver money and t he men woul d count i t t oget her .

Fi nal l y, evi dence est abl i shed t hat Lanza j oi ned Al f al f a' s

gr oup af t er l eavi ng a r i val or gani zat i on. He ser ved as a sel l er ,

-5-



enf or cer , and ( occasi onal l y) as a r unner . As t i me pr ogr essed, hi s

r ol e became mor e subst ant i al ; f or i nst ance, he was i nvi t ed t o j oi n

Al f al f a' s weekl y meet i ngs. He al so became owner of t he "gr een-

capped" cr ack at El Pr ado. As a r esul t , Lanza was spot t ed

conduct i ng busi ness at El Pr ado on a near l y ni ght l y basi s.

C. The Investigation and Indictment

These i l l i ci t act i vi t i es di d not go unnot i ced, and an

i nvest i gat i on i nt o Al f al f a' s oper at i on by a San J uan Met r o St r i ke

For ce accel er ated i n May and J une of 2007. As par t of t hat

i nvest i gat i on, agent J or ge L. Cedeño sur vei l l ed t he El Pr ado

apar t ment s. He posi t i oned hi msel f i n a par ki ng l ot f aci ng Gal án' s

apar t ment bui l di ng. Accor di ng t o Cedeño' s af f i davi t , he qui ckl y

became f ami l i ar wi t h t he bui l di ng' s l ayout , and knew t hat t he

second f l oor had t wo apar t ment s: one t o the l ef t and one t o the

r i ght ( Gal án's pur por t ed home) . From hi s usual posi t i on, he sai d,

he coul d not see t he actual door t o t he apar t ment on t he r i ght , but

he coul d see t he door t o t he apar t ment on t he l ef t and he coul d

vi ew t he st ai r s l eadi ng t o t he t hi r d f l oor ( al ong wi t h t he exi t on

t he t hi r d f l oor ) .

On at l east t wo occasi ons bet ween May 30 and J une 6,

Cedeño pur por t edl y saw Gal án wal ki ng up t o t he second f l oor ,

t ur ni ng r i ght , and di sappear i ng f or a per i od of t i me. Cedeño

concl uded ( si nce he woul d have seen Gal án go anywher e el se) t hat

Gal án must have been ent er i ng t he apar t ment . On a t hi r d occasi on,

-6-



accor di ng t o t he agent , he al so saw an i ndi vi dual wi t h a bl ack

pi st ol t ake t he same path. Agent Cedeño st at ed t hat he al so

wi t nessed Gal án wi t h cer t ai n cont r aband, i ncl udi ng: cont ai ner s

ordi nar i l y used t o hol d dr ugs; bags wi t h what appeared t o be

cocai ne i nsi de; and a pol i ce r adi o scanner . Fi nal l y, Cedeño

cl ai med t hat he saw Gal án si t t i ng i n t he st ai r wel l mani pul at i ng

pr oduct .

As not ed, Cedeño submi t t ed an af f i davi t det ai l i ng these

( and other ) obser vat i ons, and a j udge of t he San J uan Muni ci pal

Cour t appr oved a sear ch war r ant f or Gal án' s apar t ment . Dur i ng t he

sear ch, t he pol i ce r ecover ed: a pol i ce r adi o scanner t hat was

t ur ned on; a f i r ear m cl eaner ; a l oaded AK- 47 wi t h t wo magazi nes;

$1, 064 i n cash; t wo soci al secur i t y car ds; pr essur e- seal ed baggi es;

and st i cker s/ seal s depi ct i ng Osama Bi n Laden' s f ace. The of f i cer

al so f ound r egi st r at i ons f or t hr ee car s and a dr i ver ' s l i cense.

One of t he r egi st r at i ons mat ched a vehi cl e seen i n vi deo

sur vei l l ance at a Sel l és dr ug poi nt .

At t he concl usi on of t he i nvest i gat i on, a f eder al gr and

j ur y i ndi ct ed 121 def endant s, i ncl udi ng t he t hr ee i n t hi s case. I t

char ged: ( count I ) conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e

dr ugs; ( count I I ) ai di ng and abet t i ng possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e her oi n; ( count I I I ) ai di ng and abet t i ng possessi on wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e cr ack cocai ne; ( count I V) ai di ng and abet t i ng

possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e cocai ne; ( count V) ai di ng and

-7-



abet t i ng possessi on wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e mar i j uana; and ( count

VI ) conspi r acy t o possess a f i r ear m dur i ng and i n r el at i on t o dr ug

t r af f i cki ng. Gal án was al so char ged as bei ng a f el on i n possessi on

of a f i r ear m, ( Count VI I ) . Gal án, Lanza, and Ni eves wer e j oi nt l y

t r i ed.

D. The Trial, Verdict, and Sentence

At t r i al , t he gover nment r el i ed on physi cal evi dence

( such as t he i t ems f ound i n Gal án' s apar t ment ) , t he t est i mony of

l aw enf or cement of f i cer s ( such as Agent Cedeño) and, perhaps most

i mpor t ant l y, t he t est i mony of sever al co- conspi r at or s. Thr ee wer e

promi nent .

The f i r st was Wi l ber t o Pi zar r o- Sant i ago ( "Pi zar r o") who

was a dr ug sel l er at Sel l és f r om 1998 t o 2005. He subsequent l y

wor ked f or a r i val gang. At t r i al , he t est i f i ed ext ensi vel y about

Al f al f a' s oper at i on and made cl ear t hat i f an i ndi vi dual sol d dr ugs

at Sel l és i t was on Al f al f a' s behal f . He di scussed t he

or gani zat i on and pr ovi ded det ai l s about t he mur der of "Geno" - - an

associ at e who had expr essed di sagr eement wi t h Al f al f a' s deci si ons.

Pi zar r o speci f i cal l y i dent i f i ed Ni eves as t he owner of t he "$12

bag" of mar i j uana and r ef er enced speci f i c i nst ances i n whi ch he saw

Ni eves car r yi ng f i r earms. I ndeed, he al l eged t hat Ni eves was

"al ways ar med. " I n addi t i on t o i dent i f yi ng Ni eves, Pi zzar o al so

t est i f i ed t hat Lanza at t ended Al f al f a' s i nner - ci r cl e meet i ngs and

was an enf or cer wi t hi n t he or gani zat i on.

-8-



The second co- conspi r at or , Ser r ano, wor ked at El Pr ado as

a r unner and enf or cer f or Gal án. At t r i al , he i dent i f i ed Lanza as

par t of t he oper at i on, descr i bed Al f al f a' s t akeover of El Pr ado,

and expl ai ned how he came t o work di r ect l y f or Gal án. Si nce he was

Gal án' s r unner , Ser r ano was abl e t o pr ovi de subst ant i al det ai l on

t hei r i nt er act i ons. Ser r ano al so admi t t ed t hat he was gener al l y

armed t o pr ot ect Gal án.

Fi nal l y, J osé Dí az- Mar t í nez t est i f i ed about hi s

exper i ence wor ki ng f or Al f al f a at bot h Sel l és and El Pr ado. He

descr i bed t he gener al f r amewor k of t he oper at i on and Al f al f a' s

st yl e of management . He, t oo, speci f i cal l y i dent i f i ed Ni eves and

Gal án as bei ng dr ug owner s wi t hi n t he or gani zat i on. He f ur t her

expl ai ned how Lanza became owner of t he green- capped cr ack at El

Pr ado.

Af t er an ei ght een- day t r i al , a j ur y r et ur ned ver di ct s

f i ndi ng al l t hr ee def endant s gui l t y on di st i nct count s. I t f i r st

f ound al l t hr ee gui l t y on t he i ni t i al count of par t i ci pat i ng i n t he

over ar chi ng conspi r acy, count I . Addi t i onal l y, t he j ur y f ound

Lanza gui l t y of t he subst ant i ve cr ack cocai ne char ge; i t f ound

Ni eves gui l t y on t he subst ant i ve cr ack cocai ne char ge, t he

subst ant i ve cocai ne char ge, t he subst ant i ve mar i j uana char ge, and

t he f i r ear mconspi r acy char ge; and, f i nal l y, i t f ound Gal án gui l t y

on t he subst ant i ve mar i j uana char ge, t he f i r ear mconspi r acy char ge,

and t he f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m char ge. The cour t t hen

-9-



sent enced Lanza t o 240 mont hs i n pr i son, Ni eves t o 240 mont hs, and

Gal án t o 405 mont hs.

These t i mel y appeal s f ol l owed.

II.

Gal án, Lanza, and Ni eves pr esent a l aundr y- l i st of cl ai ms

r angi ng f r om mi nor evi dent i ar y concer ns t o br oad asser t i ons of

cumul at i ve er r or . We have consi der ed each and have conduct ed an

ext ensi ve r evi ew of t he r ecor d. Ul t i mat el y, onl y f i ve i ssues have

mer i t suf f i ci ent t o war r ant an i n- dept h expl or at i on. 2 We t hus

nar r ow our f ocus t o: ( 1) Gal án' s chal l enge t o t he sear ch of hi s

apar t ment ; ( 2) t he def endant s' concer ns r espect i ng t he j udge' s

i nt er vent i on dur i ng t r i al ; ( 3) t he def endant s' pr ot est s r espect i ng

t he char ge t o t he j ur y; ( 4) Ni eves' ar gument s r espect i ng t he

suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence agai nst hi m; and, ( 5) Ni eves' Al l eyne

sent enci ng cont ent i on. 3

A. Challenge to the Search of Galán's Apartment

Gal án get s t he bal l r ol l i ng wi t h a chal l enge t o t he

sear ch of hi s apar t ment . Hi s cent r al accusat i on i s that Agent

2 We have consi der ed t he r emai ni ng ar gument s and f i nd t hemt obe unper suasi ve.

3 I n addi t i on t o bypassi ng det ai l ed di scussi on of sever al of t he def endant s' cl ai ms, we not e t he gover nment ' s concer n t hat t hedef endant s i mpr oper l y j oi ned each other s' appel l at e argument s andt hat each def endant f ai l ed t o i ndependent l y obj ect at t r i al . I n acl oser case, t hese poi nt s coul d be f r ui t f ul . Her e, we not needr esol ve t hese i ssues as def endant s cannot succeed r egardl ess of t hei r val i di t y.

-10-



Cedeño i nt ent i onal l y f al si f i ed obser vat i ons i n t he af f i davi t

submi t t ed t o obt ai n a war r ant f or Gal án' s r esi dence. The di st r i ct

cour t , i n Gal án' s vi ew, t hen er r ed i n r ul i ng ot her wi se af t er a

Fr anks hear i ng. Fr anks v. Del awar e, 438 U. S. 154 ( 1978) ( pr ovi di ng

a mechani smf or a def endant t o chal l enge t he ver aci t y of st atement s

i n af f i davi t s submi t t ed t o obt ai n sear ch war r ant s) . He t hus asks

us t o r ever se t he di st r i ct cour t ' s Fr anks det er mi nat i on and

concl ude that t he f r ui t s of t he sear ch shoul d have been suppr essed.

Where, as her e, a Franks hear i ng was hel d and the

chal l enge i s t ar get ed at i t s r esul t s, "[ w] e bypass t he quest i on of

whet her [ t he def endant ] made t he ' subst ant i al pr el i mi nary showi ng'

necessar y t o i nvoke a Fr anks hear i ng, " and, i nst ead, " r evi ew de

novo t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ul t i mat e deci si on t o suppr ess [ or not

suppr ess] t he evi dence obt ai ned pur suant t o t he war r ant at i ssue. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Tzannos, 460 F. 3d 128, 135- 36 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Any ant ecedent f act ual f i ndi ngs ar e r evi ewed f or cl ear er r or . I d.

at 136.

To succeed i n chal l engi ng t he af f i davi t , Gal án must show

by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence that " t he af f i ant i n f act made

a f al se st at ement knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y, or wi t h r eckl ess

di sr egar d f or t he t r ut h, " and, "t hat wi t h t he af f i davi t ' s f al se

mat er i al set t o one si de, t he af f i davi t ' s r emai ni ng cont ent i s

i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh pr obabl e cause. " I d. at 136. Whi l e a

knowi ng and i nt ent i onal f al sehood r equi r es pr oof of i nt ent ,

-11-



r eckl essness can be i nf er r ed "f r om ci r cumst ances evi nci ng obvi ous

r easons t o doubt t he ver aci t y of t he al l egat i ons. " Uni t ed St at es

v. Ranney, 298 F. 3d 74, 78 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . A mat er i al omi ssi on

can al so f or m t he basi s of a Franks vi ol at i on. Uni t ed St at es v.

Cast i l l o, 287 F. 3d 21, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) .

Gal án f ai l s at t he f i r st pr ong. He homes i n on Agent

Cedeño' s r epeat ed st at ement i n t he af f i davi t t hat he observed Gal án

or ot her i ndi vi dual s "ent er i ng" or " exi t i ng" t he apar t ment . At t he

Fr anks hear i ng, however , Cedeño t est i f i ed t hat he coul d not

t echni cal l y see t he ent r ance t o Gal án' s apar t ment because t he door

was obst r uct ed by a concr et e st ai r case. That i nconsi st ency, Gal án

i nsi st s, exposes an i nt ent i onal f al sehood i n t he af f i davi t . Si nce

t hose al l eged obser vat i ons by Cedeño were the onl y st at ement s

connect i ng t he cr i me wi t h t he apar t ment , Gal án bel i eves t hat once

t he st atement s ar e exci sed, no pr obabl e cause f or t he sear ch

exi s ts .

We do not eval uate t hi s ar gument on a bl ank sl ate.

I nst ead, t he di st r i ct cour t made ext ensi ve f act ual det er mi nat i ons

and cr edi bi l i t y assessment s t o whi ch we def er unl ess cl ear l y

er r oneous. Notabl y, t he magi st r ate j udge ( whose deci si on was

adopt ed by t he di st r i ct cour t ) , f ound t hat Cedeño

t est i f i ed knowi ng t hat t her e ar e t woapar t ment s on t he second f l oor . To t he l ef t ,t her e i s one apar t ment , and t o the r i ght i st he onl y ot her door on t hat f l oor . He knowst hi s because he has gone up those st ai r s onsever al occasi ons and t he di st r i but i on i s

-12-



al ways t he same. The door cannot be seenbecause t he st ai r s t o t he t hi r d f l oor covert he door and i f t he def endant woul d have goneup t o t he t hi r d f l oor , t he of f i cer woul d haveseen hi m because of t he vi si bi l i t y. Theof f i cer knew t hat t he def endant ent er ed t he

apar t ment because t her e i s no ot her door . . .[ h] e st ated t hat he woul d have seen hi m goi ngup t o t hi r d f l oor .

I n t he magi st r at e j udge' s vi ew, i t s deci si on t hen t ur ned on

Cedeño' s credi bi l i t y. The cour t f ound Cedeño' s expl anat i on t o be

t r ut hf ul . Accor di ngl y, t he magi st r at e j udge r ul ed t hat no Franks

vi ol at i on had occur r ed.

Regar dl ess of t he st andar d of r evi ew, t he r ecor d - - one

whi ch det ai l s Cedeño' s f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he apar t ment compl ex and

t he i nt ensi t y of hi s i nvest i gat i on - - compel s t he same f i ndi ng. No

evi dence suppor t s Gal án' s bel i ef t hat Cedeño had any i nt ent t o

f al si f y stat ement s or t o omi t cr i t i cal i nf or mat i on, nor can we even

say t hat t her e wer e any act ual f al sehoods i n t he af f i davi t . The

ci r cumst ances al so do not suggest t hat Cedeño was somehow r eckl ess

i n wr i t i ng "ent er i ng/ exi t i ng" i nst ead of t he mor e pr eci se "I

i nf er r ed t hat he ent er ed or exi t ed. " Si mpl y put , nei t her t he

af f i davi t nor t he hear i ng t r anscri pt suppor t s Gal án' s vi ew.

I nst ead, as t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y concl uded, Cedeño made an

obvi ous and nat ur al i nf er ence f r om hi s obser vat i ons. See Uni t ed

St at es v. D' Andr ea, 648 F. 3d 1, 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( uphol di ng

-13-



deni al of a Fr anks cl ai m when t he f act ual quest i on t ur ned on t he

r easonabl eness of t he i nf er ence f r om t he f act s avai l abl e) . 4

We not e t hat accept i ng t hi s cl ear and obvi ous i nf er ence

on t hi s r ecor d i s ent i r el y consi st ent wi t h t he br oader pur poses

under pi nni ng Fr anks: t o ensure that a war r ant j udge has adequate

i nf or mat i on t o make a deci si on, and t o di ssuade of f i cer s f r om

mi sr epr esent i ng t hei r obser vat i ons. At i t s cor e, t hi s r equi r es

t hat t he of f i cer i s bei ng "t r ut hf ul i n t he sense t hat t he

i nf or mat i on put f or t h i s bel i eved or appr opr i at el y accept ed by t he

af f i ant as t r ue. " Franks, 438 U. S. at 165. Her e, t he war r ant

j udge had suf f i ci ent and accur at e i nf or mat i on wi t h whi ch t o base a

deci si on, and not hi ng i n t he af f i davi t ( or f r om t he hear i ng

t r anscr i pt s) l eads us t o quest i on Cedeño' s bel i ef i n t he st at ement s

he pr ovi ded. We t hus f i nd no r eason t o di st ur b t he l ower cour t ' s

Fr anks det er mi nat i on. 5

B. Judicial Conduct at Trial

Lanza and Gal án next asser t t wo, i nt er r el at ed chal l enges

t o t he j udge' s conduct dur i ng t r i al : ( 1) t he j udge pur por t edl y

4 Gal án al so poi nt s us t o t wo st at e cour t cases t o suppor thi s posi t i on. See Commonweal t h v. St ewar t , 13 N. E. 3d 981 ( Mass.2014) ; Har r i s v. St ate, 184 S. W. 3d 801, 813 ( Tex. App. 2005) . But ,

nei t her of t hose cases pr esent ed a f act ual backgr ound est abl i shi ngt hat t he of f i cer ' s i nf er ences wer e bot h obvi ous and r easonabl e.

5 The gover nment al so of f er s t he good f ai t h except i on as af al l - back posi t i on. The cl ear absence of any er r or i n t heaf f i davi t makes goi ng down t hi s pot ent i al l y dubi ous pat h, seeUni t ed St ates v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 922 n. 24 ( 1984) , unnecessary.

-14-



i nt er vened excl usi vel y on behal f of , and associ at ed her sel f wi t h,

t he pr osecut i on; and ( 2) t he j udge al l egedl y made i mpr oper comment s

about Gal án' s at t or ney. The par t i es di sput e whet her t hese cl ai ms

wer e pr eserved or whet her pl ai n er r or r evi ew appl i es. Gi ven t hat

t he def endant s cannot succeed under ei t her st andard, we need not

di t her . Under t he usual f r amewor k f or j udi ci al bi as cl ai ms, a

par t y must st i l l show ( 1) t hat " t he [ j udge' s] comment s wer e

i mpr oper " and ( 2) t hat t her e was "ser i ous pr ej udi ce. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Ayal a- Vázquez, 751 F. 3d 1, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; see al so

Uni t ed St ates v. Laur eano- Pér ez, - - F. 3d - - , 2015 WL 4577763 at *17

( 1st Ci r . J ul y 30, 2015) .

The def endant s' f i r st cont ent i on i s t hat t he j udge

excessi vel y i nt er f er ed on behal f of , and associ at ed her sel f wi t h,

t he pr osecut i on. They begi n t hi s argument by f ocusi ng on t he

i nst ances when t he cour t al l egedl y assi st ed t he gover nment . The

def endant s ci t e near l y t went y exampl es where def ense counsel

obj ect ed t o t he pr osecut i on' s quest i on, and t he cour t , r at her t han

mer el y r ul i ng on t he obj ect i on, r esponded by aski ng t he wi t ness a

quest i on i n a non- obj ect i onabl e way or by i nst r uct i ng t he

gover nment on how t o pr oper l y phr ase t he quest i on. E. g. , ( "So

counsel , what you want t o ask i s . . . how [ t he l i st ] compor t s t o

what he used t o pr epar e. " ) ; ( " [ Y] ou st at ed t hat at t he pol i ce

headquar t er s you act ual l y saw what was sei zed, i s t hat cor r ect ?" ) ;

( " [ A] sk hi m i f he was t he ar r est i ng agent he wi l l say no and t hen

-15-



you wi l l ask hi m i f he knows who ar r est ed t hem. [ A] nd t hen he

t est i f i ed he al er t ed t he ot her agent s. " ) ; ( "He want s t o know how

di d you get t he l at ent pr i nt t o l ook at f r om t he obj ect. ") I n

doi ng so, t he def endant s say, t he t r i al j udge essent i al l y dof f ed

her j udi ci al r obe and j oi ned t he pr osecut i on.

Of cour se, t he mer e f act t hat t he j udge i nt er vened i s not

enough f or us t o f i nd er r or . I t i s wel l - est abl i shed t hat a j udge

" i s not a mer e moder at or , but i s t he gover nor of t he t r i al f or t he

pur pose of assur i ng i t s proper conduct and of det er mi ni ng quest i ons

of l aw. " Quer ci a v. Uni t ed St at es, 289 U. S. 466, 469 ( 1933) . He

or she t hus "has a per f ect r i ght - - al bei t a r i ght t hat shoul d be

exer ci sed wi t h car e - - t o par t i ci pat e acti vel y i n t he t r i al

pr oper . " Logue v. Dore, 103 F. 3d 1040, 1045 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) . We

do not exami ne a si ngl e comment by a j udge on i t s own but , i nst ead,

must vi ew i t i n t he cont ext of t he ent i r e t r anscr i pt . Uni t ed

St at es v. Espi nal - Al mei da, 699 F. 3d 588, 607 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

As a compr ehensi ve r evi ew of t hi s t r anscr i pt est abl i shes,

t he j udge ski r t ed near t he l i ne on di scr et e occasi ons but , on t he

whol e, never cr ossed i t . Br oadl y, t he t r i al l ast ed 18 days and was

a massi ve, mul t i - def endant conspi r acy case whi ch t he cour t had t he

aut hor i t y t o move t hr ough expedi t i ousl y. Cf . Dear y v. Ci t y of

Gl oucest er , 9 F. 3d 191, 194 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( "The t r i al j udge has

di scr et i on t o mai nt ai n t he pace of t r i al . ") I ndeed, t he j udge was

qui t e expl i ci t t hat t hi s was t he cour t ' s goal . See, e. g. , ( "I ask

-16-



t hat t he gover nment use t he t i me [ a 15 mi nut e br eak] t o i dent i f y

t he speci f i c spot s wher e t hey need t o go because we need t o move

fas t e r . " ) .

More concr et el y, a pat t er n emer ges wi t h r espect t o t he

j udge' s par t i ci pat i on. The cour t gener al l y i nt er vened af t er a

par t y made a consi st ent ( somet i mes r epet i t i ve) st r i ng of

obj ect i ons, or when an obj ect i on was l odged i mmedi at el y af t er t he

par t i es compl et ed a l engt hy bench conf er ence di scussi ng t hat ver y

same evi dent i ar y i ssue. I n ot her wor ds, t he j udge i nt er r upt ed when

t he case was unnecessar i l y sl owi ng down. Whi l e i t i s t r ue t hat

t hi s was gener al l y done t o t he benef i t of t he pr osecut i on - -

t hough, cont r ar y t o what t he def endant s i nsi nuat e, not excl usi vel y

so - - t he i nt er act i ons wer e l ar gel y dr i ven by def ense counsel s' own

conduct . Def ense counsel asser t ed a pl et hor a of obj ect i ons ( of t en

r epeat edl y so or af t er t he j udge had made her r ul i ngs cl ear ) , whi l e

t he pr osecut i on exhi bi t ed mor e r est r ai nt . Di l i gent def ense of a

cl i ent i s cer t ai nl y encour aged, but t echni cal and r epet i t i ve

i nt er r upt i ons may pr oper l y pr ompt t he t r i al j udge t o i nt er vene t o

pr oceed t he t r i al . I ndeed, t he j udge i ndi cat ed t hi s on sever al

occasi ons by sayi ng, f or exampl e, "St op basi cal l y, you shoul d st op

obj ect i ng on t he same gr ounds i t i s cl ear . . . You can f ur t her

i nqui r e on cross. " The j udge was not , despi t e t he def endant s

i nsi stence, gr at ui t ousl y i nt er f er i ng.

-17-



Wi t h r espect t o t hi s i ni t i al cl ai m, Lanza and Gal án al so

i nvoke i nst ances wher e t hey al l ege t hat t he j udge af f i r mat i vel y

i dent i f i ed her sel f wi t h t he gover nment and t hus, i n t hei r vi ew,

t ur ned t he j ur y agai nst t he def endant s. Thr ee st at ement s, at f i r st

bl ush, coul d appear f ai r l y damagi ng. For exampl e, at one poi nt t he

j udge sai d, "Then you get t he name i n, j ust t o avoi d t he hear say

t hat you got . . . [ b] ecause t he j ur y i s abl e t o compar e,

cor r obor ate or di scr edi t what ever t he i nf or mant sai d. We need t hat

i n. " ( emphasi s added) . On anot her occasi on, t he j udge al l uded t o

t he def endant s' gui l t , st at i ng t hat , t he "pr oper t i me" f or an

ar gument "woul d be at t he sent ence. " Fi nal l y, i n r esponse t o a

def endant ' s obj ect i on, t he j udge sai d " t he gover nment does not have

any i nt er est t o por t r ayi ng somet hi ng t hat i s not and i t i s cl ear

t hat t he pi ct ur es wer e taken af t er t he sear ch was execut ed. "

These st at ements i n whi ch t he j udge al l egedl y

"associ at ed" her sel f wi t h t he pr osecut i on ar e ul t i mat el y not

concer ni ng. I n a vacuum, each concei vabl y coul d be deemed

pr obl emat i c. I n cont ext , however , t hey wer e not i nappr opr i at e f or

t he si mpl e reason t hat t he tar geted st at ement s were made outsi de of

t he j ur y' s pr esence. Si nce our f ocus cent er s on whet her t he

st at ement s af f ect ed t he j ur y ( or whet her t hey ar e so egr egi ous on

t hei r own as t o demand si gni f i cant scr ut i ny - - whi ch was not t he

case her e) st at ement s t hat occur out si de of t he j ur y' s pr esence ar e

gener al l y kosher . Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a- Rodr i guez, 761 F. 3d 105,

-18-



111 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( ci t i ng cases emphasi zi ng t hat t he anal yt i cal

quest i on f or us i s whet her t he j ur y per cei ved bi as) . Thus, t hi s

f i r st cl ai m r espect i ng t he j udge' s i nt er vent i on f al l s f l at .

I n addi t i on t o cl ai mi ng t hat t he j udge undul y assi st ed

t he prosecut i on, Lanza and Gal án advance a second ar gument

r espect i ng t he j udge' s act i ons; t hey poi nt t o i nst ances when t he

j udge al l egedl y badgered Gal án' s t r i al counsel . For exampl e, t he

j udge sai d " I ' m l osi ng my pat i ence wi t h you, " and " I want you t o

pay at t ent i on because I don' t want you t o open t he door , and you

ar e qui t e capabl e. " She f ur t her st at ed t hat he was "mumbl i ng, "

"exhaust i ng her , " and was a "ver y hyper per son and how shoul d I

say, ext r over t ed. " These st at ement s, t hey asser t , poi soned t he

j ur y agai nst t he def endant s.

Her e, t he cour t ' s comment s, agai n, wer e l argel y pr ompt ed

by t r i al counsel ' s conduct . Counsel r egul ar l y at t empt ed t o r e-

l i t i gat e mat t er s despi t e t he j udge' s f i r m r ul i ngs or , at ot her

t i mes, si mpl y l acked t r adi t i onal cour t r oomdecor um. For i nst ance,

he ar r i ved l at e t o cour t ( on mor e t han one occasi on) , spoke t oo

l oudl y at counsel t abl e or dur i ng bench conf er ences and, at l east

once, si mpl y wal ked out of t he cour t r oom whi l e the j udge was

speaki ng. I t i s under st andabl e t hat t he j udge r esponded as she

di d. Equal l y r el evant , t he bul k of t he st at ement s t hat t he

def endant s poi nt t o ei t her occur r ed at si debar or wer e made bef ore

t he j ur y even ent er ed t he cour t r oom. Si nce t he j ur y never heard

-19-



most of t hese st atement s, and si nce t he comment s were j ust i f i abl e,

we f i nd no er r or .

Even i f we wer e t o concl ude t hat t he j udge' s

i nt ervent i ons and comment s were i mpr oper , and t hat t he j ur y hear dal l of t hem, t he def endant s st i l l cannot succeed. Rat her t han

r eal l y engagi ng on t he quest i on of pr ej udi ce, t hey at t empt t o ar gue

t hat we shoul d vi ew any er r or her e as st r uct ur al . I n ot her wor ds,

t he ar gument r uns, t he j udi ci al i nt er vent i ons per se r equi r e

r ever sal . The def endant s t hus posi t t hat we can bypass any

eval uat i on of pr ej udi ce.

That posi t i on, however , r uns head f i r st i nt o our

pr ecedent whi ch has consi st ent l y requi r ed pr oof of "ser i ous

pr ej udi ce. " We have r ecent l y def i ned t hat t er m as requi r i ng "a

r easonabl e pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or t he cl ai med er r or , t he r esul t

of t he pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent . " Ri ver a- Rodr í guez,

761 F. 3d at 112. We have f ound such pr ej udi ce i n t he past where

t he j udi ci al i nt er vent i ons r el at ed t o an essent i al pi ece of

evi dence, bol st er ed a key wi t nesses' s t est i mony, or const i t ut ed a

decr ee on an i ssue mor e pr oper l y r eserved f or a j ur y. See, e. g. ,

Ri ver a- Rodr í guez, 761 F. 3d at 111- 12; Espi nal - Al mei da, 669 F. 3d at

606; Uni t ed St at es v. Of r ay- Campos, 534 F. 3d 1, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

As not ed, t he def endant s have not of f ered much t hat mi ght

show ser i ous pr ej udi ce. To t he ext ent t hat t hey f ocus on speci f i c

i nt er act i ons, Lanza mer el y says t hat "Lanza was convi ct ed on ver y

-20-



scant y pr oof and acqui t t ed of f our of f enses. The j udge i nt er vened

most on wi t nesses who wer e test i f yi ng as t o t he conspi r acy and t he

cr ack cocai ne: Ser r ano and Mar t í nez i n par t i cul ar . Those wer e t he

onl y t wo subst ant i ve charges whi ch Lanza was f ound gui l t y. " Gal ánonl y adds t hat "Gal án' s t r i al counsel was t he obj ect of much of t he

di s t r i ct cour t ' s di sdai n. "

Even assumi ng t hat t hi s amount s t o a devel oped ar gument

and i s t hus not wai ved, see Uni t ed St ates v. Ol adosu, 744 F. 3d 36,

39 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( "Because t he ar gument i s under devel oped, i t i s

wai ved. " ) , we di scer n no cr i t i cal evi dence t hat was ei t her enhanced

or admi t t ed sol el y on account of t he j udge' s i nt er act i ons.

Fur t her , even i f we wer e t o st r i p away the j udi ci al i nt er vent i ons

hi ghl i ght ed i n t he f act sect i on of t he def endant s' br i ef s, t her e

r emai ns enough evi dence ( when vi ewi ng t hat evi dence i n a neut r al

way) t o sust ai n t he convi ct i ons. I ndeed, t hr ee co- conspi r at or s, i n

si gni f i cant det ai l , t i ed Lanza di r ect l y t o t he conspi r acy and

expl ai ned hi s r ol e as an owner , r unner , and enf or cer . Two of t hose

t hr ee t est i f i ed speci f i cal l y to Lanza' s owner shi p of t he gr een-

capped cr ack. For Gal án, t her e was not onl y si gni f i cant t est i mony

r espect i ng hi s i nt er act i ons wi t h hi s r unner and hi s dr ug- owner shi p,

but t her e was al so subst ant i al physi cal evi dence l i nki ng hi mt o t he

conspi r acy. Si mpl y put , t he par t i es poi nt us t o not hi ng ( nor coul d

we f i nd anyt hi ng) t hat woul d est abl i sh t he necessary l evel of

pr ej udi ce t o sust ai n t hi s cl ai m.

-21-



C. Jury Charge

Lanza and Gal án next poi nt t o a number of pur por t ed

pr obl ems wi t h t he j udge' s char ge t o t he j ur y. Si nce t he def endant s

di d not pr eser ve t hese obj ect i ons, we r evi ew onl y f or pl ai n er r or .

The def endant s must t heref or e est abl i sh t hat " ( 1) an er r or

occur r ed, ( 2) t he er r or was obvi ous, ( 3) t he er r or af f ect ed

subst ant i al r i ght s, and ( 4) t he er r or ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he

f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. "

Uni t ed St at es v. LaPl ant e, 714 F. 3d 641, 643 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

The def endant s f i r st t ake i ssue wi t h t he j udge' s

i nst r ucti on on conspi r acy. Af t er t he i ni t i al char ge, t he j ur y

r et ur ned wi t h t he quest i on "what i s conspi r acy?" The par t i es al l

agr eed t hat t he j udge woul d br i ng t he j ur y back i nt o cour t and

si mpl y r e- r ead t he pr evi ousl y pr ovi ded i nst r uct i on. At one poi nt ,

t he cour t i nt ended t o say "[ m] er e si mi l ar i t y of conduct among

var i ous peopl e or t he f act t hey may have associ ated wi t h each other

or di scussed common ai ms and i nt erest s does not necessar i l y

est abl i sh pr oof of t he exi st ence of a conspi r acy, but you may

consi der such f act or s. " However , t he j udge ski pped over t he phr ase

"i nt er est s does not necessar i l y est abl i sh. "

Al t hough an er r or undoubt edl y occur r ed, i t can onl y

const i t ut e pl ai n er r or wher e t he i nst r uct i on was r easonabl y l i kel y

t o have mi sl ed t he j ur y. Uni t ed St at es v. Tr oy, 618 F. 3d 27, 33

( 1st Ci r . 2010) . We eval uat e any such er r or i n t he cont ext of t he

-22-



ent i r e i nst r uct i on. Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 669 F. 3d 10, 29 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) .

Our r ecent case of Uni t ed St ates v. Pennue, 770 F. 3d 985

( 1st Ci r . 2014) , pr ovi des gui dance. Ther e, t he di st r i ct cour ter r ed i n di scussi ng t he gover nment ' s bur den of pr oof by, as her e,

i nadver t ent l y omi t t i ng par t of t he i nt ended i nst r uct i on. Pennue,

770 F. 3d at 989 ( not i ng t hat t he di scussi on of r easonabl e doubt was

mi ssi ng a "negat i ve") . Cr i t i cal l y, we f ound no pl ai n er r or

because: t he wor d coul d have been i nf er r ed f r om t he cont ext of t he

speci f i c i nst r ucti on; t he br oader i nst r ucti ons cor r ectl y and

r epeat edl y emphasi zed t he government ' s bur den; and t he l ack of an

obj ect i on mani f est ed t he r el at i ve uni mpor t ance of t he mi st ake.

These f act or s ani mat e t he same r esul t here. Fi r st , no

i mper mi ssi bl e i nst r uct i on coul d have been i nf er r ed by t he j ur y as

a r esul t of t he mi st ake. That i s, t he j udge ski pped t he phr ase

"i nt er est s does not necessar i l y est abl i sh" bef or e sayi ng, "but you

may consi der i t such" when di scussi ng what di d and what di d not

const i t ut e a conspi r acy. That l i mi t i ng phr ase ( "but you may

consi der i t ") onl y makes sense i f t he pr i or pr oposi t i on i s l i mi t ed

i n some way; i . e. i t woul d be i mpossi bl e to reconci l e "does

necessar i l y" est abl i sh pr oof of a conspi r acy wi t h "but you may

consi der i t such. " I n ot her wor ds, even i f t he j ur y wer e conf used

by t he omi ssi on, i t woul d have been i mpossi bl e f or t he j ur y t o have

-23-



assumed t hat si mi l ar i t y i n i nt er est s and conduct di d aut omat i cal l y

per mi t a f i ndi ng of a conspi r acy.

Moreover , at t he poi nt t he j udge made t hi s mi st ake, t he

cour t had al r eady pr oper l y def i ned a conspi r acy bot h dur i ng t hei ni t i al char ge and agai n i n r esponse t o t he j ur y quest i on. The

cour t pr oper l y pl aced the bur den on the pr osecut i on to pr ove " t hat

t he agr eement speci f i ed i n t he i ndi ct ment . . . i s one, t o have one

common obj ect i ve, t he i l l egal possessi on wi t h t he i nt ent t o

di st r i but e dr ugs and not some ot her agr eement or agr eement s exi st ed

bet ween t wo peopl e t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e her oi n and

or t he cr ack cocai ne and or t he cocai ne and or t he mar i j uana. "

Fur t her , t he j udge st at ed that t he pr osecut i on needed to show " t hat

t he def endant wi l l f ul l y j oi ned i n t hat agr eement , " and t hat "t hose

t hat wer e i nvol ved shar e a gener al under st andi ng of t he cr i me . . .

t o act vol unt ar i l y and i nt el l i gent l y wi t h t he speci f i c i nt ent t hat

t he under l yi ng cr i me be commi t t ed. " Per haps most cr i t i cal l y, t he

j udge added "on t he ot her hand a person who has no knowl edge of a

conspi r acy but si mpl y happens t o act i n a way t hat f ur t her s some

obj ect or pur pose of t he conspi r acy, does not t her eby become a

conspi r at or . " We ar e sat i sf i ed t hat , as a whol e, t he i nst r uct i ons

conveyed t he pr oper def i ni t i on of a conspi r acy. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Gonzál ez- Vél ez, 466 F. 3d 27, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

We not e f i nal l y t hat , j ust as i n Pennue, no one obj ect ed

t o t he mi ssi ng i nst r uct i on. Al t hough not di sposi t i ve on i t s own,

-24-



t he f act t hat t hr ee def ense at t or neys f ai l ed t o cat ch t he mi st ake

sheds l i ght on i t s de mi ni mi s i mpact . Thi s er r or i s thus f ar f r om

si gni f i cant enough t o have af f ect ed ei t her t he meani ng of t he

i nst r uct i ons or t he j ur y' s ver di ct . No r emand i s t her ef or ewar r ant ed.

Gal án next chal l enges t he j udge' s i nst r uct i on ( or l ack

t her eof ) on t he i nt er sect i on of t he j ur y' s dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng

and t he ul t i mat e sent ence i mposed. He speci f i cal l y t akes ai m at

t he phr ase "I advi se you t hat sent enci ng, under t he l aw, i s an

i ssue t hat r emai ns wi t hi n t he sol e di scr et i on of t he Cour t . I f you

f i nd any one of t he def endant s gui l t y, i t wi l l t hen be my j ob t o

deci de what puni shment shoul d be i mposed. " He cont ends t hat t hi s

vi ol at ed t he r equi r ement i n Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es t hat a j ur y

must make cer t ai n f act ual f i ndi ngs when t hey i mpl i cat e a mandatory

mi ni mum sent ence. 133 S. Ct . 2151, 2156 ( 2013) .

No er r or occur r ed her e. As a f act ual mat t er , Gal án

i gnor es anot her par t of t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons. Ther e, t he j udge

speci f i cal l y not ed t hat t he j ur y woul d have t o make f i ndi ngs "under

t he st andard of pr oof beyond a r easonabl e doubt , " r espect i ng the

quant i t y of t he subst ances i nvol ved "whi ch may af f ect t he pot ent i al

sent ence. " Compare Uni t ed St ates v. Pi zar r o, 772 F. 3d 284 ( 1st

Ci r . 2014) ( f i ndi ng er r or wher e t he cour t f ai l s t o i nst r uct at al l

on t he r equi r ement of t he dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ng) . I f t her e wer e

-25-



any doubt , t he speci al ver di ct f or m al so emphasi zed t hat t he j ur y

had t o make t hat determi nat i on beyond a reasonabl e doubt .

Mor e poi nt edl y, t her e was not hi ng l egal l y i ncor r ect about

t he ci t ed i nst r uct i on. We have not ed si nce Al l eyne t hat sent enci ngr emai ns i n t he hands of t he j udge r egar dl ess of whet her cer t ai n

f act s t hat i mpl i cate a mandatory mi ni mumor st atut ory maxi mumgo t o

t he j ur y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Br et on, 740 F. 3d 1, 19 ( 1st Ci r .

2014) . Si nce t he j udge r emai ns r esponsi bl e f or sent enci ng af t er

Al l eyne, i t i s per f ect l y accept abl e - - assumi ng, of cour se, t hat

t he r equi r ement s of Al l eyne ar e act ual l y sat i sf i ed - - f or t he cour t

t o i nf or m t he j ur y of t hi s uncont r over si al pr oposi t i on. 6

D. Evidentiary Sufficiency and Prejudicial Variance

Unl i ke Gal án and Lanza, who f ocus on a weal t h of

di f f er ent i ssues, Ni eves' appeal pr i nci pal l y t ar get s t he adequacy

of t he evi dence. I n doi ng so, he asser t s a t r adi t i onal suf f i ci ency

of t he evi dence cl ai m and a pr ej udi ci al var i ance char ge. We

addr ess each i n t ur n.

We st ar t wi t h t he suf f i ci ency cl ai m, whi ch engender s de

novo r evi ew, vi ewi ng t he evi dence i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o

t he j ur y' s ver di ct . Uni t ed St at es v. Appol on, 695 F. 3d 44, 55 ( 1st

6 We make one passi ng not e r espect i ng t he cour t ' s speci alver di ct f or m. That f or m i mpl i ed t hat t he j ur y needed t o f i nd t hedef endant s not gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e doubt . We have r ecent l yadmoni shed t he use of t hi s f or m i n Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr í guez, 735F. 3d 1, 11- 14 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) . Nonet hel ess, we concl uded i n t hatcase t hat i t s use di d not const i t ut e pl ai n er r or . We have nor eason t o r ul e ot her wi se i n t hi s case.

-26-



Ci r . 2012) . Ni eves ar gues t hat , at most , t he evi dence est abl i shed

t hat he was pr esent at t he El Prado housi ng compl ex; he pr ot est s

t hat i t di d not show t hat he was par t of t he conspi r acy. I nst ead,

he cont ends t hat al l of t he evi dence t yi ng hi m t o t he conspi r acywas "mi ni mal , gener al , and devoi d of det ai l s. " He goes t o gr eat

l engt hs t o at t ack t he cr edi bi l i t y of t he co- conspi r at or s and ur ges

us t o mi ni mi ze, i f not out r i ght i gnor e, t hei r t est i mony. For

i nst ance, he says t hat Pi zzaro' s t est i mony was gener al and

i nt er nal l y i nconsi st ent ( e. g. , he never ment i oned Ni eves t o

of f i cer s dur i ng an i ni t i al i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he case) . Ni eves

al so poi nt s t o t he absence of t est i mony r espect i ng hi s i nt ent t o

j oi n t he conspi r acy.

Ni eves' pl ea to t he cont r ar y, we do not make cr edi bi l i t y

determi nat i ons when assessi ng t he evi dence, but i nst ead ask whether

suf f i ci ent evi dence exi st ed t o suppor t a convi ct i on. Uni t ed St at es

v. Ri ver a- Rodr í guez, 617 F. 3d 581, 595 n. 6 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) . Her e,

we need not dwel l - - t he t est i mony of sever al wi t nesses connect ed

Ni eves di r ect l y t o Al f al f a' s or gani zat i on, whi ch woul d have

per mi t t ed any reasonabl e j ur y to f i nd hi m gui l t y on count I of t he

i ndi ct ment .

For exampl e, Pi zar r o t est i f i ed t hat Ni eves owned t he "$12

bag" of mar i j uana and t hat Al f al f a per mi t t ed Ni eves t o sel l i t .

Pi zar r o f ur t her expl ai ned t hat Ni eves was al ways ar med and t hat he

engaged i n shoot i ngs as par t of hi s pr ot ect i ve dut i es. Pi zar r o

-27-



next di scussed how Ni eves was r el ated t o ot hers i n t he

or gani zat i on, how he took mar i j uana f r om hi m at a dr ug poi nt on a

speci f i c occasi on, and why, as a key enf orcer , he was dubbed

"ser geant . " Pi zar r o' s test i mony al one was suf f i ci ent t o sust ai nt he convi ct i on on t hi s count . See, Foxwor t h v. St . Amand, 570 F. 3d

414, 426 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( "[ A] cr i mi nal convi ct i on can r est on t he

t est i mony of a si ngl e eyewi t ness. Even i f t he eyewi t ness' s

t est i mony i s uncor r obor at ed and comes f r oman i ndi vi dual of dubi ous

ver aci t y, i t can suf f i ce t o gr ound a convi ct i on. ") .

Addi t i onal t est i mony and evi dence al so connect ed Ni eves

t o t he conspi r acy. Dí az- Mar t i nez, f or exampl e, i dent i f i ed Ni eves

as t he owner of t he "$12 bag" of mar i j uana, and not ed t hat he had

t al l i ed money wi t h hi m. Dí az- Mar t i nez f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat he

wi t nessed Ni eves car r yi ng f i r ear ms at Sel l és and t hat Ni eves

pr ovi ded pr ot ect i on at dr ug poi nt s. Rel at edl y, l aw enf or cement

of f i cer s t est i f i ed t o physi cal evi dence t hat was t i ed t o Ni eves.

Such physi cal evi dence i ncl uded shavi ngs of mar i j uana, an i l l egal

f i r ear m, t wo r i f l es, and t hr ee pi st ol s. I n sum, t hi s evi dence was

enough t o per mi t a j ur y to r easonabl y i nf er t hat Ni eves i nt ended

t o, and t hen di d, j oi n t he conspi r acy. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. Li zar do, 445 F. 3d 73, 81 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Ni eves next asser t s t hat even i f he can be t i ed t o t he

"$12 bag" of mar i j uana, a convi ct i on on t hat basi s const i t ut es a

pr ej udi ci al var i ance f r om t he char ge i n t he i ndi ctment . I f

-28-



anyt hi ng, he ar gues, t he evi dence t i ed hi m t o a di f f er ent dr ug and

di f f er ent housi ng uni t t han t hose i dent i f i ed i n t he char gi ng

document .

"A var i ance occur s when the cr i me char ged r emai nsunal t er ed, but t he evi dence adduced at t r i al pr oves di f f er ent f act s

t han t hose al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment . " Uni t ed St at es v. Mangual -

Sant i ago, 562 F. 3d 411, 421 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Any var i ance must be

"pr ej udi ci al " f or rever sal t o be appr opr i at e. I d. Usual l y, our

i nqui r y f ocuses on whet her t he def endant r ecei ved adequate not i ce

t o per mi t hi m or her t o def end agai nst t he char ges. See Uni t ed

St at es v. Rodr í guez, 525 F. 3d 85, 102 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) .

I t i s t r ue t hat t he gover nment descr i bed each def endant ' s

speci f i c r ol e i n t he i ndi ct ment . Wi t h r espect t o Ni eves, i t

cl assi f i ed hi mas " t he owner of a powder cocai ne di st r i but i on poi nt

wi t hi n t he Las Fl or es and Li bor i o Pubi c Housi ng Pr oj ect s and act ed

as an enf or cer and sel l er wi t hi n t hi s conspi r acy. " However , at

anot her pl ace i n t he i ndi ct ment , i t det ai l s t he speci f i c char ge

agai nst Ni eves. The char ge was: "knowi ngl y and i nt ent i onal l y

conspi r [ i ng] . . . t o posses wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e her oi n,

cocai ne, cr ack cocai ne, mar i j uana, wi t hi n 1, 000 f eet of publ i c

housi ng uni t . "

We have consi st ent l y f ound t hat wher e t he gover nment

char ges an i ndi vi dual def endant as par t of a br oad conspi r acy, but

al l eges hi s or her i nvol vement i n a speci f i c way, i t i s not a

-29-



mater i al var i ance f or t he gover nment t o t hen pr ove t hat t he

def endant was par t of t he ver y or gani zat i on i n a di st i nct manner .

For i nst ance, i n Rodr í guez, t he gover nment charged a def endant as

par t of a br oad conspi r acy but l i nked hi m t o a speci f i c i ndi vi dualwi t hi n t he or gani zat i on and accused hi m of bei ng a l eader i n t he

conspi r acy. 525 F. 3d at 102- 03. Nonethel ess, t he government

pr oved t hat t he def endant , al t hough he was par t of t he conspi r acy,

was act ual l y t i ed t o anot her i ndi vi dual and had a mor e

ci r cumscr i bed r ol e. I d. Al t hough t he evi dence was sl i ght l y

di f f er ent , we st i l l det er mi ned t hat no mat er i al var i ance occur r ed.

I n a si mi l ar vei n, i n Uni t ed St at es v. Al i cea- Car doza,

t he government char ged t he def endant as bei ng par t of a conspi r acy

but descr i bed hi m as a r unner , even t hough at t r i al i t was

est abl i shed t hat t he def endant was a t r i gger man. 132 F. 3d 1, 6

( 1st Ci r . 1997) . We not ed t hat " t he er r or i n t he i ndi ct ment was

not so gr ave" si nce t he def endant knew he was on t r i al f or bei ng

par t of t he br oader conspi r acy. I d. I ndeed, "so l ong as t he

st at ut or y vi ol at i on r emai ns t he same, t he j ur y can convi ct even i f

t he f act s f ound are somewhat di f f er ent t han t hose charged - so l ong

as t he di f f er ence does not cause unf ai r pr ej udi ce. " I d.

These cases emphasi ze t hat our f ocus i s t ar geted t o

whether t he government has pr oved t he speci f i c el ement s of t he

conspi r acy al l eged i n a manner t hat does not var y f r om t he

i ndi ct ment t o an ext ent t hat unf ai r l y handi caps or mi sl eads t he

-30-



def ense. Uni t ed St at es v. Mubayyi d, 658 F. 3d 35, 48- 54 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . Thi s r ul e makes sense si nce t he goal of t he pr ej udi ci al

var i ance anal ysi s i s, i n par t , t o det er mi ne whet her t he i ndi ct ment

put t he def endant on not i ce of t he charge t he government was goi ngt o seek t o pr ove at t r i al . Rodr í guez, 525 F. 3d at 102 ( ci t i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Bal t hazar d, 360 F. 3d 309, 314 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ) .

Ni eves, l i ke t he def endant s i n t he cases di scussed, has

f ai l ed t o show how any pr ej udi ci al var i ance occur r ed. Al t hough t he

gover nment pr oved t hat he was i nvol ved i n t he organi zat i on i n a

sl i ght l y di f f er ent way than or i gi nal l y char ged ( t hat i s,

r esponsi bl e f or a di f f er ent dr ug t ype and cent er ed at a di f f er ent

housi ng uni t ) , t he gover nment never t hel ess: ( 1) al l eged and

est abl i shed t he exi st ence of t he conspi r acy; and ( 2) al l eged and

pr oved Ni eves' i nvol vement i n t hat ver y conspi r acy. The

di scr epancy bet ween what was al l eged i n t he i ndi ct ment and what

was est abl i shed at t r i al , was not so di f f er ent t hat Ni eves can now

cl ai m t hat he l acked not i ce of t he cr i me that t he gover nment was

seeki ng t o pr ove. Nor ar e t her e any ot her hi nt s i n t hi s recor d

t hat he was other wi se pr ej udi ced f r om t he mi nor di f f er ences.

Accor di ngl y, no mat er i al var i ance exi st s under t hese ci r cumst ances.

E. Alleyne and Conspiracy Drug-Quantity Findings

The t hr ee def endant s f i nal l y t ake ai mat t hei r sentences.

Pr i nci pal l y, t hey di sagr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t ' s adopt i on of

cer t ai n Gui del i nes enhancement s. We f i nd no er r or s, and si ngl e out

-31-



onl y one poi nt f or di scussi on: Ni eves' ar gument i n hi s Feder al Rul e

of Appel l at e Pr ocedur e 28( j ) l et t er t hat t he di st r i ct cour t

vi ol at ed Al l eyne i n maki ng cer t ai n dr ug- quant i t y f i ndi ngs. As i t

i s not pr eser ved, we r evi ew t he cl ai m f or pl ai n er r or .I n est abl i shi ng Ni eves' base- of f ense l evel under t he

Gui del i nes, U. S. S. G. §2D1. 1( c) ( 1) , t he di st r i ct cour t adopt ed t he

j ur y' s f i ndi ngs r espect i ng t he amount of dr ugs t hat Ni eves was

r esponsi bl e f or on count one, t he br oad conspi r acy char ge. Thi s

cont r i but ed t o set t i ng hi s base- of f ense l evel at 34. Ni eves ar gues

t hat t he di st r i ct cour t commi t t ed an Al l eyne er r or when i t made

t hi s dr ug- quant i t y det er mi nat i on as i t subj ect ed hi m t o an

"enhanced sent ence. " He al so seems t o argue, al t hough j ust barel y,

t hat t he cour t ut i l i zed t hese f i ndi ngs t o subj ect hi m t o a

st at ut or y mandat or y- mi ni mum.

Ni eves' ar gument t hat t he di st r i ct cour t vi ol at ed Al l eyne

by f i ndi ng cer t ai n f act s f or Gui del i nes pur poses i s f or ecl osed by

our pr ecedent . As we have noted, " f actual f i ndi ngs made f or

pur poses of appl yi ng t he Gui del i nes, whi ch i nf l uence t he sent enci ng

j udge' s di scr et i on i n i mposi ng an advi sor y Gui del i nes sent ence and

do not r esul t i n i mposi t i on of a mandat ory mi ni mumsent ence, do not

vi ol at e t he r ul e i n Al l eyne. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ramí r ez- Negr ón, 751

F. 3d 42, 48 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Cor r ey, 773

F. 3d 276, 280 n. 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Accor di ngl y, Ni eves' cont ent i on

necessar i l y f ai l s .

-32-



To t he ext ent t hat Ni eves ar gues t hat t he cour t

i mpr oper l y subj ect ed hi mt o a st atut ory mandat ory- mi ni mumbased on

i t s dr ug- quant i t y f i ndi ngs, t he r ecor d appear s t o show t hat t he

cour t actual l y i mposed a sent ence based pur el y on Gui del i nesconsi der at i ons. As Ramí r ez- Negr ón not ed, Al l eyne onl y appl i es

wher e "t he def endant has been convi ct ed and sent enced under t he

aggr avat ed ver si on of t he st at ut e - - t hat i s, wher e an enhanced

mandatory mi ni mum appl i es. " Ramí r ez- Negr ón, 751 F. 3d at 49

( emphasi s added) . Al t hough t he di st r i ct cour t i n t hi s case made a

passi ng ref er ence t hat t he amount of dr ugs " i s t he mi ni mumpur suant

t o t he st at ut or y mi ni mum, " i t s act ual sent enci ng deci si on was based

pur el y on Gui del i nes consi der at i ons and t he f act ors enumer at ed i n

18 U. S. C. § 3553( a) . See i d. at 50. I ndeed, even wher e t he cour t

made t he dr ug quant i t y f i ndi ngs, i t di d so excl usi vel y i n t he

cont ext of det er mi ni ng t he def endant ' s base- of f ense l evel under t he

Gui del i nes. We ar e t hus i ncl i ned t o say t hat Al l eyne does not even

appl y i n t hi s case.

I n any event , we need not concl usi vel y make t hat

det er mi nat i on si nce, even assumi ng t hat Al l eyne appl i es, no er r or

occur r ed. Our deci si on i n Uni t ed St at es v. Acost a- Col ón, 741 F. 3d

179 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) , i s i nstr uct i ve. I n t hat case, t he j ur y, l i ke

t he one i n t hi s case, made i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ngs t hat each

def endant conspi r ed t o possess and di st r i but e a speci f i c quant i t y

of dr ugs. The j udge t hen ut i l i zed t hat preci se number t o det er mi ne

-33-



t he quant i t y of dr ugs the def endant was responsi bl e f or . I d. at

192. We f ound no er r or because " t he j ur y' s i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug-

quant i t y f i ndi ngs st i l l [ t he def endant ' s] cry that no

i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ngs dr ove t hi s par t of t he j udge' s sent enci ngdeci s i on. " I d.

As i n Acost a- Col ón, t he di st r i ct cour t her e ut i l i zed a

speci al ver di ct f or m r equi r i ng t he j ur y t o make cer t ai n dr ug-

quant i t y f i ndi ngs. The f or m asked t he j ur y, wi t h r espect t o each

drug t ype and each def endant , "Do you unani mousl y agr ee, by proof

beyond r easonabl e doubt , t hat t he quant i t y of subst ance cont ai ni ng

a det ect abl e amount of [ dr ug] whi ch t he def endant conspi r ed t o

posses wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e was: [ amount ] . " Si nce t he

j ur y di d j ust t hat , t he cour t act ed appr opr i at el y i n at t r i but i ng

t hat pr eci se amount t o Ni eves. 7

III.

Accor di ngl y, we affirm t he appel l ant s' convi ct i ons and

sent ences.

7 Ni eves al so cont ends that t he amount at t r i but ed t o hi m wascl ear l y er r oneous. He i s i ncor r ect . The evi dence was mor e t hanenough t o both si t uate Ni eves as par t of t he br oad conspi r acy and

t o connect hi m t o t he speci f i c amount of dr ugs he coul d r easonabl yhave f or eseen as f l owi ng t hr ough t he conspi r acy. I ndeed, gi ven t hel engt h of t i me t hat Ni eves was i nvol ved i n t he conspi r acy ( sevenyear s) , and hi s si gni f i cant r ol e i n i t , t he amount adopt ed by t he j ur y ( 1 ki l o of heroi n, 50g of cr ack, 5 ki l os of cocai ne, 100 ki l osof mar i j uana) was on t he l ow end of what a r easonabl e f act - f i ndercoul d have at t r i but ed t o hi m.

34

united states v. nieves-canales, 1st cir. (2015)

Documents