United States v. Santos-Rivera, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Santos-Rivera, 1st Cir. (2013)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-santos-rivera-1st-cir-2013 1/24

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 10- 1687

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J UAN SANTOS- RI VERA,

Def endant - Appel l ant .

No. 10- 1931


Appel l ee,

v.

J EFFREY CARRASQUI LLO- OCASI O,


No. 10- 2155


Appel l ee,

v.

J ESÚS M. DÍ AZ- CORREA,




APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. Gust avo A. Gel pí , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Tor r uel l a, Li pez, and Howar d, Ci r cui t J udges.

Davi d Ramos- Pagan f or appel l ant J uan Sant os- Ri ver a.Al an J ay Bl ack f or appel l ant J ef f r ey Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o. J uan M. Masi ni - Sol er f or appel l ant J esús M. Dí az- Cor r ea.Mar i ana Bauzá, 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, and J ul i a M. Meconi at es,Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

August 7, 2013



LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Fol l owi ng a si xt een- day t r i al , a j ur y

convi ct ed t he def endant s on conspi r acy and dr ug possessi on char ges

st emmi ng f r omt hei r r ol e i n a cr i mi nal or gani zat i on oper at i ng a 24-

hour "drug poi nt " i n t he J esus T. Pi ñer o Publ i c Housi ng Pr oj ect i n

Canóvanas, Puer t o Ri co. Each of t he t hr ee def endant s was convi ct ed

of conspi r acy t o possess wi t h t he i nt ent t o di st r i but e at l east 50

gr ams of cocai ne base, at l east 5 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne, and a

measur abl e quant i t y of mar i j uana wi t hi n 1, 000 f eet of a pr ot ect ed

zone and of ai di ng and abet t i ng t he same i n vi ol at i on of 21 U. S. C.

§§ 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) , 846, and 860, and 18 U. S. C § 2.

Def endant J esús Dí az- Cor r ea was al so convi ct ed of conspi r acy to

possess f i r ear ms i n f ur t her ance of dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i mes i n

vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. § 924( o) . Each def endant r ecei ved a l engt hy

t er m of i ncar cer at i on: Dí az- Cor r ea was sent enced t o 330 mont hs,

J uan Sant os- Ri ver a t o 240 mont hs, and J ef f er y Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o

t o 216 mont hs. The j ur y al so i mposed a f or f ei t ur e under 21 U. S. C.

§ 853.

Def endant s Dí az- Cor r ea and Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o chal l enge t hei r

convi ct i ons, asser t i ng t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n denyi ng

t hei r mot i ons under Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 29 f or a

j udgment of acqui t t al . Dí az- Cor r ea al so ar gues i n t he al t er nat i ve

t hat hi s convi ct i on was i r r epar abl y tai nt ed by pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct dur i ng cl osi ng ar gument s. Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o and

Sant os- Ri ver a bot h chal l enge t hei r sent ences.

-3-



Al t hough t her e was an i nst ance of pr osecut or i al mi sconduct

her e, i t i s saved by har ml ess er r or . Hence, we af f i r m t he

j udgments of t he di st r i ct cour t .

I. Background

"We t ur n t o t he t r i al r ecor d f or t he f ol l owi ng backgr ound,

pr esent i ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he ver di ct . "

Uni t ed St at es v. Gómez- Rosar i o, 418 F. 3d 90, 93 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

The t hr ee def endant s i n t hi s case wer e i ndi ct ed, al ong wi t h 39

co- conspi r at or s, f or t hei r r ol e i n a subst ant i al , or gani zed dr ug

t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy oper at i ng out of t he J esús T. Pi ñer o Publ i c

Housi ng Pr oj ect ( "Pi ñer o" ) i n Canóvanas, Puer t o Ri co f r om 2006 t o

2008. Accor di ng t o t he t est i mony at t r i al , t he dr ug poi nt oper at ed

ar ound t he cl ock, movi ng at l east 400 vi al s of cr ack cocai ne, 30

bags of powder cocai ne, and 160 bags of mar i j uana on a dai l y basi s.

The Pi ñero oper at i on was suf f i ci ent l y or gani zed so t hat each

co- conspi r at or had a pr escr i bed, speci al i zed r ol e wi t hi n t he

oper at i on. Sant os- Ri ver a was a "pusher , " meani ng he sol d dr ugs at

t he dr ug poi nt on behal f of t he or gani zat i on and r ecei ved a

commi ssi on on t hose sal es. Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o was al so a "pusher "

f or t he or gani zat i on, but dur i ng t he r el evant per i od he was

pr omoted and became a "r unner " f or t he t en- dol l ar bags of cocai ne.

As such, he was i n char ge of del i ver i ng cocai ne f r om t he st ash

poi nt s t o t he sel l er s wor ki ng t he dr ug poi nt , and he had t o col l ect

and t al l y cash at t he end of shi f t s, di st r i but e t o t he sel l er s

-4-



t hei r commi ssi on, and ret ur n that money t o t he dr ug poi nt

admi ni st r at or s. Dí az- Cor r ea was an "admi ni st r at or " of t he Pi ñer o

dr ug poi nt . He was r esponsi bl e f or over seei ng t he day- t o- day

oper at i ons of t he dr ug poi nt and host i ng meet i ngs wi t h ot her

l eader s t o or gani ze and pl an the conspi r acy' s unl awf ul busi ness.

To suppor t t he char ge of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy, t he

gover nment i nt r oduced dr ugs and weapons sei zed f r om Pi ñer o,

sur vei l l ance phot ogr aphs and vi deo recor di ngs of t he dr ug poi nt i n

oper at i on, and wi r e- t ap r ecor di ngs of conver sat i ons bet ween var i ous

co- conspi r at or s. To t i e t he t hr ee co- def endant s t o t he conspi r acy,

t he gover nment r el i ed pr i mar i l y on t he t est i mony of t wo conf essed

f or mer co- conspi r at or s: 1) Gr et chen Vi l l af añe, t he common l aw wi f e

of t he or gani zat i on' s i ncar cer at ed f or mer l eader , and 2) Dani el

Nuñez- Ri ver a, al so known as Danny Sel l és, an act i ve member of t he

Pi ñero dr ug operat i on who became a conf i dent i al i nf ormant somet i me

i n 2007. The j ur y convi ct ed t he def endant s on ever y count charged

i n t he i ndi ct ment .

We f i r st di scuss t he chal l enges t o t he convi ct i ons, begi nni ng

wi t h Dí az- Cor r ea and Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o' s suf f i ci ency chal l enges

and t hen addr ess Dí az- Cor r ea' s al l egat i on of pr osecut or i al

mi sconduct . We cl ose wi t h a di scussi on of Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o and

Sant os- Ri ver a' s chal l enges t o t hei r sent enci ng.

-5-



II. Challenges to the Convictions

A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

"We r evi ew de novo the di st r i ct cour t ' s deni al of a mot i on

made under Rul e 29 f or j udgment of acqui t t al . " Uni t ed St ates v.

Fer nández- Her nández, 652 F. 3d 56, 67 (1st Ci r . 2011). I n o u r

r evi ew, " [ w] e exami ne t he evi dence, bot h di r ect and ci r cumst ant i al ,

i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he j ur y' s ver di ct . We do not

assess t he credi bi l i t y of wi t nesses, as t hat r ol e i s r eser ved f or

t he j ury. Nor need we be convi nced t hat t he government succeeded

i n el i mi nat i ng ever y possi bl e t heor y consi st ent wi t h t he

def endant ' s i nnocence. Rat her , we must deci de whether that

evi dence, i ncl udi ng al l pl ausi bl e i nf er ences dr awn t her ef r om, woul d

al l ow a r at i onal f act f i nder t o concl ude beyond a reasonabl e doubt

t hat t he def endant commi t t ed t he charged cr i me. " Uni t ed St ates v.

Tr oy, 583 F. 3d 20, 24 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Thi s st andar d of r evi ew i s f or mi dabl e

and "def endant s chal l engi ng convi ct i ons f or i nsuf f i ci ency of

evi dence f ace an uphi l l bat t l e on appeal . " Uni t ed St at es v.

Li pscomb, 539 F. 3d 32, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Pol anco, 634 F. 3d 39, 44- 45 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( not i ng t hat

"a suf f i ci ency chal l enge i s a t ough sel l ") .

-6-



1. Drug Trafficking Charges

"To pr ove a dr ug conspi r acy charge under 21 U. S. C. § 846, t he

gover nment i s obl i ged t o show t hat a conspi r acy exi st ed and t hat a

par t i cul ar def endant agr eed t o par t i ci pat e i n i t , i nt endi ng t o

commi t t he under l yi ng subst ant i ve of f ense. " Uni t ed St ates v.

Bal t as, 236 F. 3d 27, 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Because nei t her can ser i ousl y

cont end t hat a dr ug conspi r acy di d not exi st at Pi ñer o, bot h

def endant s at t ack the evi dence demonst r at i ng thei r agr eement t o

par t i ci pat e i n t he dr ug- sel l i ng oper at i on t her e. Speci f i cal l y,

t hey ar gue t hat t he t est i mony of t he gover nment ' s key wi t nesses,

co- conspi r at or s Nuñez- Ri ver a and Vi l l af añe, was t oo concl usory and

unr el i abl e f or a r easonabl e f act f i nder t o concl ude beyond a

r easonabl e doubt t hat Dí az- Cor r ea and Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o wer e

i nvol ved i n t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng conspi r acy and dr ug di st r i but i on

act i vi t i es at Pi ñer o. We di scuss Dí az- Cor r ea' s suf f i ci ency

chal l enge bef or e t ur ni ng t o Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o' s.

a. Díaz-Correa

Dí az- Cor r ea of f er s t hr ee i nt er r el at ed ar gument s i n suppor t of

hi s suf f i ci ency chal l enge. Fi r st , he ar gues t hat because no

physi cal evi dence of f er ed at t r i al l i nked hi m t o t he Pi ñer o

conspi r acy, t he t est i mony of t wo co- conspi r at or s i s per se

i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi ct i on. Second, he ar gues t hat even

i f a convi ct i on coul d i n some i nst ances be suppor t ed by co-

-7-



conspi r at or t est i mony, Nuñez- Ri ver a and Vi l l af añe' s t est i mony was

i nsuf f i ci ent i n hi s case t o est abl i sh t hat he par t i ci pat ed i n t he

Pi ñer o conspi r acy. Fi nal l y, he ar gues t hat even i f t he co-

conspi r at or s' t est i mony t aken at f ace val ue woul d be suf f i ci ent t o

suppor t hi s convi ct i on, t hei r t est i mony was not cr edi bl e.

Dí az- Cor r ea' s ar gument t hat t he t est i mony of co- conspi r at or s,

st andi ng al one, i s never suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a convi ct i on i s

f orecl osed by our case l aw. We have pr evi ousl y uphel d dr ug

conspi r acy and ai di ng and abet t i ng convi ct i ons wher e t he evi dence

t yi ng t he def endant t o t he conspi r acy was provi ded pr i mar i l y by t he

t est i mony of a si ngl e co- conspi r at or who became a pai d government

i nf or mant . See Uni t ed St ates v. Gonzál ez- Vázquez, 219 F. 3d 37, 40-

41, 45- 46 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Fer nández-

Her nández, 652 F. 3d 56, 67- 68 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . I ndeed, we have

consi st ent l y reaf f i r med t hat " [ a] convi ct i on may be based sol el y on

t he uncor r obor at ed t est i mony of a conf i dent i al i nf or mant ' so l ong

as t he t est i mony i s not i ncredi bl e or i nsubst ant i al on i t s f ace. ' "

Gonzál ez- Vázquez, 219 F. 3d at 46 ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v. Ci occa,

106 F. 3d 1079, 1084 ( 1st Ci r . 1997) ) .

Dí az- Cor r ea' s second argument –- t hat Vi l l af añe and Nuñez-

Ri ver a' s t est i mony amount s t o vague gener al i zat i ons – - i s equal l y

unavai l i ng. Dur i ng t hei r t est i mony, bot h Nuñez- Ri ver a and

Vi l l af añe demonst r at ed a det ai l ed knowl edge of t he Pi ñer o dr ug

conspi r acy. For exampl e, when shown phot ogr aphs of sever al co-

-8-



conspi r at or s, Nuñez- Ri ver a knew t hei r names, t hei r r ol es i n t he

conspi r acy, where t hey worked, and what dr ugs t hey suppl i ed. He

t est i f i ed as t o t he shi f t schedul e f or pusher s wor ki ng at t he dr ug

poi nt and t he gener al f l ow of oper at i ons at Pi ñer o, i ncl udi ng whi ch

t i mes of day, days of t he week, and days of t he mont h were usual l y

busy and whi ch ones wer e sl ow. For her par t , Vi l l af añe t est i f i ed

as t o how she woul d hi de weapons and dr ugs f or t he conspi r acy i n

her home. She al so descr i bed meet i ngs she at t ended wi t h t he

or gani zat i on' s l eader s and coul d i dent i f y whi ch co- conspi r at or s

wer e i n charge of t he money, of cooki ng the crack cocai ne, and of

packagi ng and wei ghi ng t he drugs.

The t est i mony of t he t wo wi t nesses as t o Dí az- Cor r ea' s

speci f i c r ol e i n t he conspi r acy was l i kewi se mor e t han suf f i ci ent l y

det ai l ed t o sust ai n hi s convi ct i on. I n par t i cul ar , bot h Nuñez-

Ri ver a and Vi l l af añe descr i bed Dí az- Cor r ea' s r i se to power i n 2008.

I smael Her edi a, t he or gani zat i on' s i ncar cer at ed l eader , became

di ssat i sf i ed wi t h hi s f or mer dr ug poi nt admi ni st r at or and

det er mi ned t o r epl ace hi mwi t h Dí az- Cor r ea. Nuñez- Ri ver a t est i f i ed

t hat Dí az- Cor r ea f r equent l y came t o Pi ñer o i n per son t o admi ni st er

hi s dr ug poi nt , and t hat once he had est abl i shed hi msel f as t he

admi ni st r at or of t he Pi ñer o dr ug poi nt , he began t o oper at e t he

dr ug poi nt i n a si mi l ar manner t o hi s pr edecessor , i ncl udi ng

host i ng or gani zat i onal meet i ngs at a pl ace cal l ed "La Sel va. " Thi s

t est i mony was al so conf i r med i n par t by recorded conver sat i ons

-9-



bet ween Vi l l af añe and Her edi a, dur i ng whi ch t hey di scussed Dí az-

Cor r ea.

Cr edi bi l i t y i s a quest i on f or t he j ur y, whi ch on appeal must

be r esol ved i n f avor of t he gover nment . See Uni t ed St ates v.

Ayal a- Gar cí a, 574 F. 3d 5, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Al t hough Dí az- Cor r ea

at t empt s t o save hi s argument f or evi dent i ar y i nsuf f i ci ency by

poi nt i ng t o a f ew mi nor i nconsi st enci es bet ween Nuñez- Ri ver a and

Vi l l af añe' s t est i mony, such mi nor i nconsi st enci es i n ot her wi se

l engt hy and cor r oborated t est i mony wi l l not under mi ne t he wi t ness'

cr edi bi l i t y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 457 F. 3d 109, 119

( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

b. Carrasquillo-Ocasio

I n an echo of Dí az- Cor r ea' s ar gument , Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o

asser t s t hat Nuñez- Ri ver a' s t est i mony agai nst hi m amount ed t o

not hi ng more t han vague gener al i zat i ons. But , agai n, t he r ecor d

r eveal s t hat Nuñez- Ri ver a gave det ai l ed t est i mony based on hi s

per sonal exper i ences sel l i ng dr ugs wi t h Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o.

Nuñez- Ri ver a coul d r ecal l t he speci f i c t i mi ng of t he shi f t s he

worked wi t h Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o and what drugs t hey sol d. When

shown a map of t he Pi ñero compl ex, Nuñez- Ri ver a poi nt ed out t he

exact l ocat i ons wher e he and Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o sol d dr ugs

t oget her . Nuñez- Ri ver a r ecal l ed Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o' s pr omot i on t o

a " r unner , " and he descr i bed t he pr ocess Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o woul d

use when del i ver i ng t he cocai ne t o t he dr ug poi nt and when

-10-



col l ect i ng t he cash r evenues at t he end of t he shi f t s and

del i ver i ng t hemt o t he or gani zat i on' s l eader s. Thi s t est i mony was

consi st ent wi t h Vi l l af añe' s t est i mony t hat she per sonal l y del i ver ed

cash t o Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o whi ch he i n t ur n del i ver ed t o t he dr ug

poi nt ' s l eader s.

I n shor t , Nuñez- Ri ver a and Vi l l af añe' s t est i mony was not

"i ncredi bl e or i nsubst ant i al on i t s f ace, " Ci occa, 106 F. 3d at

1084, and was mor e t han enough t o enabl e a r easonabl e f act f i nder

t o det er mi ne Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o' s gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt .

2. Díaz-Correa's Conviction under Section 924(o)

Dí az- Cor r ea' s argument t hat t her e was i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence t o

convi ct hi m under 18 U. S. C. § 924( o) i s si mi l ar l y unper suasi ve.

Where a def endant i s char ged under 18 U. S. C. § 924( o) " t he j ur y

[ does] not even need t o f i nd t hat [ t he def endant ] hi msel f ever used

or possessed a f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of t he dr ug conspi r acy. I t

woul d be suf f i ci ent t o f i nd t hat he was par t of an agr eement t o do

so. " Uni t ed St at es v. Fl or es de J esús, 569 F. 3d 8, 30 n. 14 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) . As pr evi ousl y di scussed, t her e was mor e t han

suf f i ci ent evi dence i n t hi s case t hat Dí az- Cor r ea was a l eader of

t he dr ug conspi r acy at Pi ñer o. Thus, t o sust ai n a convi ct i on under

sect i on 924( o) , t he government need onl y show t hat Dí az- Cor r ea was

par t of an agr eement t o use f i r ear ms i n f ur t her ance of t he Pi ñer o

or gani zat i on' s i nt er est s.

At t r i al , t he gover nment of f er ed t est i mony and r eal evi dence

-11-



demonst r at i ng t hat f i r ear ms wer e used r egul ar l y i n f ur t her ance of

t he Pi ñero dr ug conspi r acy. Fi r ear ms and ammuni t i on whi ch had been

sei zed f r om member s of t he Pi ñer o dr ug t r af f i cki ng oper at i on wer e

ent er ed i nt o evi dence, i ncl udi ng a Romar m/ Cugi r Ri f l e, a Si g Sauer

pi st ol , a Col t r evol ver , a Gl ock pi st ol , and a Smi t h & Wesson . 38

cal i ber r evol ver . Many of t hese weapons wer e sei zed f r om sel l er s

oper at i ng at Pi ñer o dur i ng a si ngl e r ai d.

Vi l l af añe' s and Nuñez- Ri ver a' s t est i mony al so est abl i shed t hat

guns wer e a r egul ar par t of t he oper at i on of t he Pi ñer o dr ug

conspi r acy. For exampl e, Vi l l af añe t est i f i ed t hat she st or ed guns

on behal f of t he or gani zat i on and she t est i f i ed t hat cer t ai n co-

conspi r at or s al ways car r i ed guns whi l e at Pi ñer o.

Nuñez- Ri ver a al so t est i f i ed t hat he had seen Dí az- Cor r ea

hi msel f car r y guns whi l e admi ni st er i ng t he dr ug poi nt . Accor di ng

t o Nuñez- Ri ver a, when Dí az- Cor r ea was pr omot ed t o admi ni st r at or at

t he dr ug poi nt :

A: [ Manuel ] 1 l et us know t hat t he housi ng pr oj ect nol onger was I smael ' s, t hat i t was hi s. And he was – hewant ed no f ucki ng ar ound wi t h hi s st uf f .Q: Si r , was Manuel ar med t hat day? A: Yes. . . .Q: Di d Manuel car r y f i r ear ms asi de f r om t hat day? A: Yes. You coul d not see i t , but you coul d not i ce t hebul ge i n hi s wai st and al so Dar r en' s.

Q: Asi de f r om seei ng t he bul ge, di d you ever see af i r ear m? A: Yes. Once i n a car Manuel and Dar r en were count i ng

1 Dur i ng hi s t est i mony, Nuñez- Ri ver a ref er r ed t o Dí az- Cor r eaby hi s ni ckname, "Manuel . "

-12-



some money and I appr oached and asked hi m f or $10.Q: What t ype of f i r ear m di d you see? A: He had a Ber et t a on t op of hi s r i ght t hi gh i nsi de t hecar.

Nuñez- Ri ver a and Vi l l af añe' s t est i mony and t he r eal evi dence

of f er ed at t r i al pr ovi ded mor e t han enough evi dence f or a

r easonabl e f act f i nder t o concl ude t hat Dí az- Cor r ea had agr eed wi t h

ot her l eader s of t he or gani zat i on t o use f i r ear ms t o pr omot e t hei r

dr ug- t r af f i cki ng oper at i on.

B. Prosecutor's Misconduct During Closing Argument

Dí az- Cor r ea ar gues t hat t he pr osecut or ' s conduct dur i ngcl osi ng argument was so i nf l ammat ory t hat i t amount ed t o

mi sconduct . We br i ef l y r evi ew t he event s at cl osi ng argument

bef or e di scussi ng t he pr opr i et y of t he pr osecut or ' s act i ons.

I n hi s cl osi ng ar gument , counsel f or Dí az- Cor r ea suggest ed

t hat t he "bul ge" t hat Nuñez- Ri ver a test i f i ed he had seen i n Dí az-

Cor r ea' s wai st band at Pi ñer o was not necessar i l y t he Ber et t a t hatNuñez- Ri ver a saw l at er i n Dí az- Cor r ea' s l ap. Def ense counsel

suggest ed t hat t he bul ge coul d have been cr eat ed by anot her obj ect ,

such as a cel l phone.

To r espond t o t hi s suggest i on dur i ng her r ebut t al , t he

pr osecut i ng at t or ney went t o t he evi dence t abl e and sel ect ed a

pi st ol t hat had been ent er ed i nt o evi dence. The pi st ol shesel ect ed was not a Ber et t a, and t her e was no evi dence or al l egat i on

t hat i t had ever been owned or car r i ed by Dí az- Cor r ea.

Never t hel ess, t he pr osecut i ng at t or ney hel d t he gun i n f r ont of t he

-13-



j ur y and sai d:

And l et ' s t al k about t he bul ge. You heard an argumentt hat t he bul ge i n t he wai st cover [ was] a cel l phone.Consi der t hi s, compar e t hi s cel l phone wi t h t hi s pi st ol .And use your common sense.

Counsel f or Dí az- Cor r ea obj ect ed, and t he di st r i ct cour t

agr eed t hat t he pr osecut or ' s use of t he gun was i nappr opr i at e,

par t i cul ar l y gi ven t hat t he f i r ear m sel ect ed was not t he Ber et t a

Dí az- Cor r ea al l egedl y possessed. The di st r i ct cour t t hen

i nst r uct ed t he j ur y "not [ t o] consi der t he pi st ol t hat was shown, "

but al l owed the pr osecut or t o make her poi nt t hat a cel l phone was

unl i kel y t o cause t he bul ge seen by Nuñez- Ri ver a.

The t er m "pr osecut or i al mi sconduct " cover s a br oad swat h of

i mpr oper conduct by t he st ate' s at t orney t hat may i mpai r an

accused' s const i t ut i onal r i ght s t o a f ai r t r i al , such as comment i ng

on an accused' s deci si on t o r emai n si l ent , wi t ness vouchi ng, and

i nt r oduci ng i nadmi ssi bl e evi dence t hr ough cr oss- exami nat i on. See,

e. g. , Doyl e v. Ohi o, 426 U. S. 610, 619- 20 ( 1976) ( hol di ng t hat i t

i s i mpr oper f or pr osecut or t o comment on accused' s post - ar r est

si l ence) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Vázquez- Bot et , 532 F. 3d 37, 53 ( 1st Ci r .

2008) ( di scussi ng i mpr oper wi t ness vouchi ng) ; Uni t ed St ates v.

Hal l , 989 F. 2d 711, 716 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) ( di scussi ng i mpr oper

i nt r oduct i on of hear say evi dence t hr ough "ar t f ul cr oss- exami nat i on"and col l ect i ng cases) . I n t he cl osi ng ar gument cont ext , a

pr osecut or ' s r emarks or act i ons ar e i mpr oper wher e t hey "ser ve no

pur pose ot her t han t o i nf l ame t he passi ons and pr ej udi ces of t he

-14-



j ur y, and t o i nt er j ect i ssues br oader t han t he gui l t or i nnocence

of t he accused. " Ar r i et a- Agr essot v. Uni t ed St at es, 3 F. 3d 525, 527

( 1st Ci r . 1993) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . We ar e par t i cul ar l y sensi t i ve t o i nappr opr i at e conduct

dur i ng r ebut t al , when " t he i mpr oper r emarks [ are] among t he l ast

wor ds spoken t o t he j ur y by t he t r i al at t or neys. " Ayal a- Gar cí a,

574 F. 3d at 20 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) . Wher e, as her e, def endant ' s counsel makes a t i mel y

obj ect i on t o the pr osecut or ' s conduct , "we r evi ew de novo whet her

t he r emarks amount ed t o pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . " I d. at 16.

The pr osecut or ' s act i ons i n t hi s case ar e an exampl e of

pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . Under t hese ci r cumst ances, t aki ng a gun

f r om t he evi dence t abl e and br andi shi ng i t bef or e the j ur y dur i ng

r ebut t al i s obvi ousl y i nf l ammat or y. I t shoul d have been evi dent t o

t he pr osecut or t hat she shoul d have br oached wi t h t he j udge t he

i dea of pr esent i ng t he gun t o t he j ur y i n t hi s pr ovocat i ve manner ,

t her eby al l owi ng t he def ense t o r egi st er i t s obj ect i on. The cour t

woul d have pr oscr i bed or modi f i ed t he demonst r at i on and t he ensui ng

pr obl ems coul d have easi l y been avoi ded. Gi ven t hat t he gun used

i n t he demonst r at i on was not even t he one al l egedl y owned or used

by Dí az- Cor r ea, a f act t hat t he pr osecut or knew, t he pr osecut or ' s

behavi or i s al l t he mor e t r oubl i ng.

I t i s al so t r oubl i ng t hat t hi s demonst r at i on was unnecessar y.

As t he di st r i ct cour t suggest ed, t he pr osecut or coul d have made her

-15-



poi nt t hat a cel l phone was t oo smal l t o cr eat e t he bul ge j ust as

easi l y by di spl ayi ng t he cel l phone wi t hout t he gun and aski ng t he

j ur y t o use i t s common sense. Mor eover , even wi t hout Nuñez-

Ri ver a' s t est i mony t hat he had seen a "bul ge" i n Dí az- Cor r ea' s

wai st band, t here was more t han enough evi dence f or t he j ur y t o

concl ude t hat Dí az- Cor r ea had conspi r ed to use guns i n f ur t her ance

of t he Pi ñer o dr ug oper at i on. I ndeed, shor t l y af t er hi s t est i mony

about t he "bul ge, " Nuñez- Ri ver a t est i f i ed t hat he had seen t he

Ber et t a i n Dí az- Cor r ea' s possessi on on anot her occasi on. I t i s

i mpor t ant f or a pr osecut or t o know when t he pot ent i al cost s of an

argument t o t he j ur y or a demonst r at i on f ar out wei gh the need f or

i t . Her e, an i mpul si ve and unnecessar y deci si on by a pr osecut or

r i sked under mi ni ng al l of t he har d wor k of a sevent een- day j ur y

t r i al , whi ch was i t sel f t he pr oduct of a mul t i - year i nvest i gat i on.

Never t hel ess, t he Supr eme Cour t has st ated t hat wher e "t he

r ecord, vi ewed i n the aggr egate, pr esent s over whel mi ng evi dence

est abl i shi ng [ t he def endant ' s] gui l t . . . we ar e compel l ed t o

concl ude t hat t he pr osecut or ' s i mpr oper r emar ks di d not ' so poi son

t he wel l t hat t he t r i al ' s out come was l i kel y af f ect ed. ' " Uni t ed

St at es v. Andúj ar - Basco, 488 F. 3d 549 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Hender son, 320 F. 3d 92, 107 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ; see

al so Vázquez- Bot et , 532 F. 3d at 59 ( " [ W] e ar e mi ndf ul of t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s admoni t i on t hat we not set gui l t y per sons f r ee

si mpl y t o puni sh pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . " ) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

-16-



Auch, 187 F. 3d 125, 133 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( " [ W] e heed t he Supr eme

Cour t ' s admoni t i on agai nst l et t i ng t he gui l t y go f r ee t o puni sh

pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . ") ( ci t i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Hast i ngs, 461

U. S. 499, 506- 507 ( 1983) ) . I n t hi s case, we ar e convi nced t hat t he

evi dence was so over whel mi ngl y on the government ' s s i de t hat t he

j ur y woul d have convi ct ed r egar dl ess of t he pr osecut or ' s mi sgui ded

demonst r at i on. As such, t he pr osecut or ' s er r or was har ml ess, and

we af f i r m t he convi cti on.

III. Sentencing Challenges

A. Carrasquillo-Ocasio

Af t er convi ct i on, Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o f aced a st at ut or y

mandat or y mi ni mumsent ence of 10 year s and a Sent enci ng Gui del i nes

r ecommendat i on of 360 mont hs t o l i f e. Fi ndi ng t hat t he sent ence

r ecommended under t he Gui del i nes was great er t han necessar y, t he

di st r i ct cour t sent enced Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o t o 18 year s of

i mpr i sonment . Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o appeal s, ar gui ng t hat hi s

sent ence shoul d be r emanded because of t he Fai r Sentenci ng Act and

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f ai l ur e t o make an i ndi vi dual i zed dr ug

quant i t y det er mi nat i on. We exami ne each ar gument i n t ur n.

1. Fair Sentencing Act

On August 3, 2010 Pr esi dent Obama si gned t he Fai r Sentenci ng

Act of 2010 ( "FSA") , P. L. 111- 220, 124 St at . 3272, whi ch r educed

t he di spar i t y i n sent enci ng bet ween of f enses i nvol vi ng cr ack

cocai ne and t hose i nvol vi ng powder cocai ne. The FSA i t sel f di d not

-17-



addr ess r et r oact i vi t y, but i n Uni t ed St at es v. Goncal ves, 642 F. 3d

245 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) , cer t . deni ed, 132 S. Ct . 596 ( 2011) , we j oi ned

t en of our f el l ow Ci r cui t Cour t s of Appeal i n concl udi ng t hat t he

FSA i s not r et r oact i ve f or t he benef i t of a def endant l i ke

Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o, whose cr i mi nal conduct and sent enci ng occur r ed

bef ore t he FSA became l aw. See i d. at 253 n. 8; 2 see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Cur et , 670 F. 3d 296, 309- 10 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( r e- af f i r mi ng

t hat " t he FSA does not appl y t o i ndi vi dual s who wer e sent enced

bef or e t he FSA was si gned i nt o l aw") .

Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o was sent enced on J ul y 12, 2010, shor t l y

bef ore t he FSA became l aw. On appeal , Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o ur ges us

t o over t ur n our deci si on i n Goncal ves, and hol d t hat t he FSA shoul d

be appl i ed r et r oact i vel y t o r educe t he sent ences of t hose who, l i ke

hi m, wer e sent enced under t he har sher pre- FSA mandat or y mi ni mums

f or cr ack- r el at ed of f enses and whose appeal s wer e st i l l pendi ng on

2 We not e t hat whi l e t he def endant i n Goncal ves was sent encedbef or e August 3, 2010, st at ement s i n di ct a suggest ed t hat t hi sCour t woul d appl y t he FSA r egi me onl y i n cases where the of f enseconduct i t sel f occur r ed af t er August 3, 2010. That posi t i on i s nowpr ecl uded by the Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Dorsey v. Uni t edSt at es, 132 S. Ct . 2321 ( 2012) . I n t hat case, t he Cour t det er mi ned

t hat t he mor e l eni ent penal t i es of t he FSA appl i ed t o def endant swho were sent enced af t er August 3, 2010, r egardl ess of t he dat e of t hei r conduct of f ense or t he dat e of t hei r convi ct i on or ent r y of gui l t y pl ea. I d. at 2335. I n Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o' s case, hi sof f ense conduct , hi s convi ct i on, and hi s sent ence al l occur r edbef or e August 3, 2010. Hence, t he Cour t ' s deci si on i n Dorsey i si nappl i cabl e t o hi m.

-18-



August 3, 2010. 3

There ar e onl y t wo ci r cumst ances, however , when a panel of

t hi s Cour t may over t ur n t he hol di ng of a pr evi ous panel . Uni t ed

St at es v. Mal ouf , 466 F. 3d 21, 26- 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . The f i r st i s

wher e super veni ng aut hor i t y, such as an en banc deci si on, an

opi ni on of t he Supr eme Cour t , or newl y passed l egi sl at i on

under mi nes t he deci si on of a pr evi ous panel . See Uni t ed St ates v.

Hol l oway, 499 F. 3d 114, 118 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v.

Al l en, 469 F. 3d 11, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . The second, whi ch we have

descr i bed as "hen' s- t eet h r ar e, " occur s wher e "aut hor i t y t hat

post dat es t he or i gi nal deci si on, al t hough not di r ect l y cont r ol l i ng,

may [ ] of f er a compel l i ng r eason f or bel i evi ng t hat t he f or mer

panel , i n l i ght of new devel opment s, woul d change i t s col l ect i ve

mi nd. " Mal ouf , 466 F. 3d at 27 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

As Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o admi t s t hat no super veni ng aut hor i t y exi st s

and poi nt s t o no "compel l i ng r eason" why the f ormer panel woul d

have changed i t s "col l ect i ve mi nd, " we decl i ne t o r evi si t

Goncal ves.

2. Individualized Drug Quantity and Credibility Determination

"When sent enci ng a par t i ci pant i n a dr ug- t r af f i cki ng

conspi r acy, t he di st r i ct cour t must make an i ndi vi dual i zed f i ndi ng

3 Whi l e hi s appeal was pendi ng, Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o moved f ori ni t i al hear i ng en banc. On J anuar y 9, 2012, t hi s cour t deni edt hat r equest . Uni t ed St at es v. Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o, No. 10- 1931( 1st Ci r . J an. 9, 2012) ( or der denyi ng r equest f or i ni t i al en bancr evi ew) .

-19-



concer ni ng t he quant i t y of dr ugs at t r i but abl e t o, or r easonabl y

f or eseeabl e by, t he of f ender . " Uni t ed St at es v. Ci nt r ón-

Echaut egui , 604 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( f oot not e omi t t ed) ; see

al so Uni t ed St at es v. Col on- Sol i s, 354 F. 3d 101, 103 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ( not i ng t hat i n a dr ug conspi r acy case a "def endant - speci f i c

det er mi nat i on of dr ug quant i t y" i s a r equi r ed "benchmar k f or

i ndi vi dual i zed sent enci ng under t he gui del i nes" ) . We r evi ew t he

quest i on of whether t he sent enci ng j udge made an i ndi vi dual

quant i t y det er mi nat i on at al l de novo; i f we det er mi ne t hat an

i ndi vi dual i zed det er mi nat i on was made, our r evi ew i s onl y f or cl ear

er r or . See Ci nt r ón- Echaut egui , 604 F. 3d at 5.

At t he sent enci ng hear i ng, t he cour t made a cl ear

i ndi vi dual i zed quant i t y det er mi nat i on, concl udi ng t hat

Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o was r esponsi bl e f or t he ent i r e dr ug quant i t y

sol d dur i ng t he t i me he par t i ci pat ed i n t he Pi ñer o conspi r acy f r om

somet i me i n 2007 unt i l ear l y 2008, r ather t han t he ent i r e 2006- 2008

l i f espan of t he conspi r acy. The cour t st at ed: " [ A] s t o t he

speci f i c dr ug amount . . . [ i ] f i t had been conspi r acy- wi de, i t

woul d have been gr eat er , but i t ' s speci f i c t o hi s par t i ci pat i on

dur i ng t he t i me he was pr esent . . . . And l et me not e, i t ' s

di f f er ent [ f r om] ot her Def endant s . . . Thi s one speci f i cal l y

nar r owed t o hi s pr esence 2007 t o ear l y 2008. "

Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o ar gues t hat i t was er r or t o at t r i but e t o

hi mt he ent i r e quant i t y of dr ugs moved by t he conspi r acy dur i ng t he

-20-



t i me he par t i ci pat ed i n t he Pi ñer o oper at i on, r at her t han mer el y

t he dr ugs he per sonal l y sol d or del i ver ed. Thi s ar gument

mi sunder st ands Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o' s l i abi l i t y. As a member of a

conspi r acy, he was l i abl e not onl y f or t he dr ugs "at t r i but abl e" t o

hi m, but al so t o t hose " r easonabl y f or eseeabl e by" hi m. I d.

Evi dence at t r i al i ndi cat ed t hat Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o not onl y sol d

dr ugs at t he dr ug poi nt , but al so t hat he was a "r unner , "

r esponsi bl e f or movi ng dr ugs f r omt he st ash house t o the dr ug poi nt

and f or col l ect i ng and del i ver i ng cash r evenues f r om t he

conspi r acy. The di st r i ct cour t was t hus wel l wi t hi n t he bounds of

r easonabl eness t o concl ude t hat t he ent i r e dr ug quant i t y moved

t hr ough Pi ñer o was "r easonabl y f or eseeabl e" by Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o.

Ther e was no er r or .

Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o f ur t her asser t s t hat our deci si on i n

Uni t ed St at es v. Cor r ey, 570 F. 3d 373 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) , r equi r es us

t o r emand hi s case f or r esent enci ng because t he di st r i ct cour t

f ai l ed t o make an expl i ci t cr edi bi l i t y assessment of Nuñez- Ri ver a' s

t est i mony, whi ch was t he pr i mar y evi dence gi ven at t r i al as t o

speci f i c dr ug quant i t i es. I n Cor r ey, al so a mul t i - def endant

conspi r acy convi ct i on under sect i on 841 wher e speci f i c dr ug

quant i t i es wer e adduced f r omt he t est i mony of a si ngl e wi t ness, we

r emanded f or r esent enci ng because the di st r i ct cour t j udge f ai l ed

t o make a cr edi bi l i t y assessment of t hat wi t ness' s t est i mony. See

i d. at 380- 381.

-21-



Despi t e t hese f aci al s i mi l ar i t i es, Car r asqui l l o- Ocasi o' s

r el i ance on Cor r ey i s mi spl aced. The f act or s t hat gave r i se t o our

concer ns i n Cor r ey ar e not present i n t hi s case. I n Cor r ey, a

j udge who had not pr esi ded over t he t r i al pr esi ded over sentenci ng,

and t he t r anscr i pt of t he sent enci ng hear i ng suggest ed t hat t he

sent enci ng j udge was not f ami l i ar wi t h t he t r i al t est i mony beyond

what coul d be f ound i n t he pr e- sent enci ng r epor t ( "PSR") . I n t hi s

case, by cont r ast , t he same j udge who pr esi ded over Car r asqui l l o-

Ocasi o' s l engt hy t r i al al so pr esi ded at hi s sent enci ng hear i ng and

t he sent enci ng hear i ngs of many of hi s co- conspi r at or s - - t hose who

went t o t r i al as wel l as t hose who pl ed gui l t y. The t r anscr i pt of

t he sent enci ng hear i ng reveal s t hat t he cour t was i nt i mat el y

f ami l i ar wi t h t he f act s of t he case and t he event s at t r i al , and

t he di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o credi t t he dr ug quant i t i es i n t he

PSR was an i mpl i ci t deci si on to cr edi t Nuñez- Ri ver a' s t est i mony.

B. Santos-Rivera

Unl i ke hi s co- def endant s, Sant os- Ri ver a chal l enges onl y hi s

sent enci ng, not hi s convi ct i on. Because Sant os- Ri ver a had a

pr evi ous convi ct i on f or f el ony dr ug possessi on, hi s convi ct i on

under sect i on 841( b) ( 1) ( A) t r i gger ed a mandatory mi ni mum sent ence

of t went y year s. Whi l e expr essi ng hi s r egr et t hat he l acked t he

di scr et i on t o or der a mor e l eni ent sent ence, t he di st r i ct cour t

r el uct ant l y sent enced Sant os- Ri ver a t o 240 mont hs. On appeal ,

Sant os- Ri ver a asser t s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t i ncor r ectl y

-22-



cal cul at ed hi s r ecommended range under t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes

and t hat hi s sent ence was unr easonabl e.

Bot h of Sant os- Ri ver a' s argument s, however , ar e f or ecl osed.

The di st r i ct cour t expl ai ned t hat i t sentenced Sant os- Ri ver a t o t he

st at utory mi ni mum mandat ed by 21 U. S. C. §§ 841( b) & 851. Unl i ke

sent ences i mposed under t he Gui del i nes, whi ch are di scr et i onary and

r equi r e t he sent enci ng j udge t o i mpose a sent ence that i s

r easonabl e, a st at ut ory mandat ory mi ni mumsent ence i s compel l ed by

t he t ext of § 841( b) , whi ch i s a congr essi onal mandat e over whi ch

t he t r i al cour t has no di screti on. 4 See Uni t ed St at es v.

At onakopoul os, 399 F. 3d 68, 75 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( "A mandatory

mi ni mum sent ence i mposed as r equi r ed by a st at ut e based on f act s

f ound by a j ur y or admi t t ed by a def endant i s not a candi date f or

Booker er r or . ") . Because t he di st r i ct cour t had no di scr et i on t o

i mpose a sent ence l ess t han 240 mont hs, nei t her of Sant os- Ri ver a' s

ar gument s woul d ent i t l e hi m t o any r el i ef . We have no choi ce but

t o af f i r m hi s sent ence.

4 Under t he cur r ent Sent enci ng Gui del i nes, t her e ar e a f ew

except i ons t o t he gener al r ul e t hat a st atut ory mandatory mi ni mumappl i es aut omat i cal l y. See e. g. , 28 U. S. C. § 994( n) ( mandat or ymi ni mums may be wai ved because of def endant ' s "subst ant i alassi st ance" i n a gover nment i nvest i gat i on) ; U. S. S. G. § 5C1. 2 and 18U. S. C. § 3553( f ) ( 1) - ( 5) ( def endant s convi ct ed of cer t ai n cr i mes mayavoi d mandatory mi ni mums i f t hey meet cer t ai n cr i t er i a) . None of t hese except i ons i s appl i cabl e t o t he i nst ant case.

-23-



IV. Conclusion

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, t he j udgment s of t he di st r i ct cour t

ar e af f i r med.

So ordered.

-24-

United States v. Santos-Rivera, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Santos-Rivera, 1st Cir. (2013)