United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez, 1st Cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez, 1st Cir. (2014)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/united-states-v-sepulveda-hernandez-1st-cir-2014 1/34

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 12- 2301 13- 1339

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

TOMÁS SEPÚLVEDA- HERNÁNDEZ, a/ k/ a TOMMY,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

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

Lynch, Chi ef J udge, Tor r uel l a and Sel ya, Ci r cui t J udges.

I r ma R. Val l dej ul i f or appel l ant . J ul i a Dí az- Rex, 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, and Nel sonPér ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at eDi vi si on, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

May 2, 2014



SELYA, Circuit Judge. The appeal s i n t hi s cr i mi nal case

r ai se t wo quest i ons of f i r st i mpr essi on i n t hi s ci r cui t . The f i r st

asks whet her t he st atut e doubl i ng t he maxi mumavai l abl e penal t y f or

dr ug di st r i but i on i n cl ose pr oxi mi t y to a yout h cent er , see 21

U. S. C. § 860( a) , cr eat es an i ndependent subst ant i ve of f ense or ,

i nst ead, oper ates mer el y as a sent ence- enhanci ng f actor . We

concl ude t hat t hi s st at ut e does cr eat e an i ndependent of f ense. We

al so concl ude, however , t hat t he evi dence of f er ed at t r i al was

i nsuf f i ci ent t o suppor t convi cti ons f or t hat of f ense.

Thi s t ees up t he second novel quest i on, whi ch asks

whet her , not wi t hst andi ng t hat t he evi dence was i nsuf f i ci ent t o

gr ound convi ct i ons under sect i on 860( a) , t he def endant can be hel d

t o account on a l esser i ncl uded of f ense t heor y under 21 U. S. C.

§ 841( a) ( 1) . We answer t hi s quest i on i n t he af f i r mat i ve.

Af t er di spat chi ng t he r emai nder of t he def endant ' s

assever at i onal ar r ay, we vacate t he convi ct i ons and sent ence under

sect i on 860( a) , or der t he ent r y of convi ct i ons under sect i on

841( a) ( 1) , and r emand f or r esent enci ng. At t he same t i me, we

af f i r ma r el at ed $1, 000, 000 cr i mi nal f or f ei t ur e j udgment . The t al e

f ol l ows.

I. TRAVEL OF THE CASE

Fr om 2000 to 2008, def endant - appel l ant Tomás Sepúl veda-

Hernández was t he mar i j uana suppl i er t o, and a co- owner of , an open

ai r dr ug market i n La Trocha Ward, Vega Baj a, Puer t o Ri co. Thi s

- 2-



dr ug poi nt was l ocat ed i n cl ose pr oxi mi t y to a publ i c basket bal l

court.

I n December of 2008, a f eder al gr and j ur y i ndi ct ed t he

def endant , al ong wi t h f i f t y- ei ght ot her s, on char ges st emmi ng f r om

t he di st r i but i on of mar i j uana and cr ack cocai ne. For r easons t hat

need not concern us, t he cr owd thi nned and the def endant st ood

t r i al al one. Fol l owi ng t en days of t r i al , a j ur y f ound t he

def endant gui l t y of conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e

at l east 50 gr ams of cr ack cocai ne and at l east 100 ki l ogr ams of

mar i j uana ( count 1) , see 21 U. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) ( dr ug

di st r i but i on) , 846 ( conspi r acy) , as wel l as ai di ng and abet t i ng i n

t he di st r i but i on of at l east 100 ki l ogr ams of mar i j uana ( count 3) ,

see 18 U. S. C. § 2 ( ai di ng and abet t i ng) . On a speci al ver di ct

f or m, t he j ur y i ndi cat ed t hat t he cul pabl e act i vi t i es descri bed i n

count s 1 and 3 t ook pl ace "wi t hi n 100 [ f eet ] of a pr i vat e or publ i c

yout h cent er . . . i nt ended pr i mar i l y f or use by per sons under 18

year s of age. " The j ur y al so f ound agai nst t he def endant on a

r el at ed cr i mi nal f or f ei t ur e count ( count 4) . See 21 U. S. C.

§ 853( a) . The di st r i ct cour t el evat ed t he def endant ' s of f ense

l evel i n l i ght of t he j ur y' s f i ndi ng t hat dr ug sal es had occur r ed

i n cl ose pr oxi mi t y t o a yout h cent er , see USSG §2D1. 2( a) ( 1) ;

i mposed a 210- mont h i ncar cer at i ve sent ence; and set t he f or f ei t ur e

amount at $1, 000, 000.

- 3-



These t i mel y appeal s f ol l owed. I n t hem, t he def endant

mount s a wi de var i et y of chal l enges t o hi s convi ct i ons, hi s

sent ence, and t he f or f ei t ur e j udgment . We exami ne t hese chal l enges

sequent i al l y.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

The def endant asser t s t hat t he government ' s evi dence was

i nsuf f i ci ent i n t wo r espect s. He ar gues, f i r st , t hat t he pr oof

f ai l ed t o est abl i sh t hat t he dr ug poi nt oper at ed wi t hi n 100 f eet of

a yout h cent er . He ar gues, second, t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o

pr ove t hat he had any rol e at al l i n t he conspi r acy.

We r evi ew pr eser ved suf f i ci ency chal l enges de novo. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Gobbi , 471 F. 3d 302, 308 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . I n

conduct i ng our i nqui r y, we exami ne t he evi dence " i n t he l i ght most

agr eeabl e t o t he pr osecut i on and deci de whet her t hat evi dence,

i ncl udi ng al l pl ausi bl e i nf er ences ext r act abl e t her ef r om, enabl es

a r at i onal f act f i nder t o concl ude beyond a r easonabl e doubt t hat

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

de J esús, 230 F. 3d 1, 5 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k

omi t t ed) . We wi l l uphol d a convi ct i on as l ong as t he j ur y' s

ver di ct "i s suppor t ed by a pl ausi bl e r endi t i on of t he r ecor d. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Or t i z, 966 F. 2d 707, 711 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) .

A. The Charged Crimes.

The char ges i n t hi s case ( conspi r acy and ai di ng and

abet t i ng) i mpl i cat e 21 U. S. C. § 860( a) , whi ch pr ovi des t hat any

- 4-



per son who commi t s cer t ai n dr ug- r el ated cr i mes " wi t hi n 100 f eet of

a publ i c or pr i vat e yout h cent er " shal l be " subj ect t o [ ] t wi ce t he

maxi mumpuni shment " ot her wi se aut hor i zed. The t er m"yout h cent er "

i s def i ned as "any r ecr eat i onal f aci l i t y and/ or gymnasi um

( i ncl udi ng any par ki ng l ot appur t enant t her et o) , i nt ended pr i mar i l y

f or use by per sons under 18 year s of age, whi ch r egul ar l y pr ovi des

at hl et i c, ci vi c, or cul t ur al act i vi t i es. " I d. § 860( e) ( 2) . The

def endant concedes t hat t he drug mar ket descr i bed by t he gover nment

was wi t hi n 100 f eet of a publ i c basket bal l cour t , but he i nsi st s

t hat t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr ove t hat t he f aci l i t y was " i nt ended

pr i mar i l y" f or use by mi nor s.

As a t hr eshol d mat t er , t he par t i es wr angl e about t he

quant um of pr oof r equi r ed t o est abl i sh pr oxi mi t y t o a "yout h

cent er . " The def endant posi t s t hat sect i on 860( a) cr eat es an

i ndependent subst ant i ve of f ense, so t hat pr oxi mi t y t o a yout h

cent er i s an el ement of t hat cr i me t hat must be pr oven t o t he j ur y

beyond a r easonabl e doubt . See Uni t ed St at es v. Goodi ne, 326 F. 3d

26, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( expl ai ni ng t hat el ement s of cr i mes must be

proven t o a j ury beyond a r easonabl e doubt ) . The gover nment

demur s. I t posi t s that pr oxi mi t y t o a yout h cent er i s si mpl y a

sent ence- enhanci ng f act or t hat must onl y be pr oven to t he j udge by

pr eponder ant evi dence. See i d. ( expl ai ni ng t hat sent enci ng f act or s

may be f ound by t he j udge under a pr eponder ance st andar d) .

- 5-



The di st i nct i on bet ween subst ant i ve cr i mes and sentenci ng

f act or s can of t en be eni gmat i c. I n any gi ven case, however , t hi s

di st i nct i on boi l s down t o a quest i on of st at ut or y i nt er pr et at i on.

I n i nt er pr et i ng t he st at ut e at i ssue her e, we do not

wr i t e on a pr i st i ne page. No f ewer t han t en of our si st er ci r cui t s

have gr appl ed wi t h t he same quest i on, and al l of t hem have

concl uded that sect i on 860( a) cr eat es an i ndependent subst ant i ve

of f ense, not mer el y a sent ence- enhanci ng f act or . See Uni t ed St at es

v. Osbor ne, 673 F. 3d 508, 513 ( 6t h Ci r . 2012) ( col l ect i ng cases) .

We have been unabl e to f i nd ( and the gover nment has not ci t ed) any

cont r ar y ci r cui t cour t pr ecedent .

I n our vi ew, t he consensus posi t i on i s cor r ect . A

st at ut e ought t o be r ead as a whol e. See FDA v. Br own & Wi l l i amson

Tobacco Cor p. , 529 U. S. 120, 132- 33 ( 2000) ; O' Connel l v. Shal al a,

79 F. 3d 170, 176 ( 1st Ci r . 1996) . Her e, subsect i on ( d) of sect i on

860 st at es t hat per sons " convi ct ed under t hi s sect i on" ar e onl y

par ol e- el i gi bl e under cer t ai n ci r cumst ances. Si mi l ar l y, subsect i on

( b) di scusses t he ef f ect s of "a pr i or convi ct i on under subsect i on

( a) . " I t woul d be st r ange f or Congr ess t o descr i be a per son as

havi ng been "convi ct ed" under a sent enci ng f act or — and we do not

t hi nk that Congr ess i ndul ged such an awkward l ocut i on her e. Thus,

we mai nt ai n t he unani mi t y of t he cour t s of appeal s and hol d t hat

sect i on 860( a) cr eat es an i ndependent subst ant i ve of f ense.

- 6-



Gi ven t hi s hol di ng, our t ask i s t o pl umb t he r ecor d t o

det er mi ne whet her t he evi dence i s suf f i ci ent t o al l ow any rat i onal

f act f i nder t o concl ude beyond a reasonabl e doubt t hat t he

basket bal l cour t near t he dr ug mar ket was i nt ended pr i mar i l y f or

t he use of mi nor s. The gover nment ' s evi dence on t hi s poi nt i s

di st r essi ngl y vague. I t i ncl udes t he t est i mony of a l ongt i me

r esi dent t hat "di f f er ent peopl e, chi l dr en woul d go t her e t o pl ay,

young peopl e, ol d peopl e, adul t s. " I t al so i ncl udes t he t est i mony

of a muni ci pal of f i ci al who recount ed t hat t he cour t i s made

avai l abl e f or basket bal l t our nament s and ot her communi t y uses.

Nei t her pi ece of evi dence speaks t o whet her t he f aci l i t y was

" i nt ended pr i mar i l y" f or t he use of mi nor s.

I n an ef f or t t o f i l l t hi s voi d, t he gover nment r el i es on

sever al sur vei l l ance vi deos of cont r ol l ed dr ug buys, whi ch show a

f ew chi l dren and young peopl e (among many other s) i n t he

backgr ound. The gover nment ' s rel i ance i s mi sl ai d: i t def i es reason

t o thi nk t hat t hi s vi deo evi dence has t he capaci t y t o pr ove t hat

t he basket bal l cour t was i nt ended pr i mar i l y f or t he use of mi nor s.

Wor ds i n a st at ut e have consequences. " [ P] r i mar i l y"

means "essent i al l y; most l y; chi ef l y; pr i nci pal l y. " The Random

House Di ct i onary of t he Engl i sh Language 1537 ( 2d ed. 1987) . I t

f ol l ows, we t hi nk, t hat Congr ess di d not i nt end f or dr ug sal es at

speci f i c l ocat i ons t o t r i gger shar pl y i ncreased penal t i es si mpl y

- 7-



because mi nors happen t o be i n t he vi ci ni t y of a par t i cul ar

f aci l i t y f r om t i me t o t i me.

I n t hi s case, t he gover nment has not of f er ed a shred of

evi dence t hat t he muni ci pal i t y ei t her const r uct ed or mai nt ai ned t he

basket bal l cour t chi ef l y or pr i nci pal l y f or t he enj oyment of

mi nor s. Nor has i t pr oduced even a sci nt i l l a of evi dence t hat t he

cour t ' s r egul ar use was mai nl y or most l y by mi nor s. Gi ven t hi s

pauci t y of pr oof , t he i nf er ence t hat t he gover nment asks us t o dr aw

i s i nsuppor t abl e.

I n a Rumpel st i l t ski n- l i ke ef f or t t o t ur n dr oss i nt o gol d,

t he gover nment l auds t he deci si on i n Uni t ed St ates v. Lee, 242 F.

App' x 209 ( 5t h Ci r . 2007) ( per cur i am) . Ther e, t he cour t uphel d a

yout h cent er pr oxi mi t y f i ndi ng wi t h r espect t o dr ug di st r i but i on

near t he TEEN F. L. O. W. Yout h Cent er i n Mi dl and, Texas. See i d. at

210, 212. The cour t ' s di scussi on of t he i ssue compr i ses onl y t wo

sent ences. I t st at es t hat "t her e was uncont r over t ed and

unchal l enged test i mony t hat t he [ cent er ] was a ' yout h cent er ' wher e

chi l dr en pl ayed basket bal l . " I d. at 212. That i s f ar r emoved f r om

t he r ecor d her e — a recor d t hat cont ai ns nei t her evi dence of t he

muni ci pal i t y' s i nt ent t o creat e a f aci l i t y t hat mi ght qual i f y as a

yout h cent er nor evi dence quant i f yi ng ( or even est i mat i ng) t he

ext ent t o whi ch the basket bal l cour t was used by mi nors.

That ends t hi s aspect of t he mat t er . The gover nment has

t he bur den of est abl i shi ng ever y el ement of a charged cr i me, see

- 8-



Uni t ed St at es v. Spi nney, 65 F. 3d 231, 234 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) , and

car r yi ng t hat bur den r equi r es mor e t han hopef ul supposi t i on l aced

wi t h a l arge dose of conj ect ur e. Because t he evi dence her e f al l s

woef ul l y shor t of est abl i shi ng t hat t he basket bal l cour t was

i nt ended pr i mar i l y f or t he use of per sons under t he age of 18, t he

def endant ' s convi ct i ons under sect i on 860( a) cannot st and.

B. The Lesser Included Offense.

Our next t ask i s t o gauge the r eper cussi ons at t endant t o

vacat i ng t he sect i on 860( a) convi ct i ons. The gover nment asks that

we di r ect t he cour t bel ow t o ent er convi ct i ons f or l esser i ncl uded

of f enses — conspi r i ng wi t h, and ai di ng and abet t i ng, t he dr ug

di st r i but i on ent er pr i se i n vi ol at i on of secti on 841( a) ( 1) ( a

st at ut e t hat does not i ncl ude t he el ement of pr oxi mi t y to a yout h

center). 1 The def endant r esi st s t he ent r y of such an or der .

Congr ess has gi ven t he cour t s of appeal s aut hor i t y t o

"af f i r m, modi f y, vacat e, set asi de or r ever se any j udgment

. . . and di r ect t he ent r y of such appr opr i at e j udgment . . . as

may be j ust under t he ci r cumst ances. " 28 U. S. C. § 2106. The

cour t s of appeal s have r eadi l y embr aced t he sensi bl e pr act i ce of

usi ng sect i on 2106 as a vehi cl e f or ent er i ng l esser i ncl uded

of f ense convi ct i ons. See Rut l edge v. Uni t ed St at es, 517 U. S. 292,

1 Sect i on 841( a) ( 1) makes i t unl awf ul t o "di st r i but e . . . orpossess wi t h i nt ent t o . . . di str i but e . . . a cont r ol l edsubst ance" knowi ngl y or i nt ent i onal l y. Pr oof of no ot her orf ur t her el ement i s r equi r ed.

- 9-



305- 06 ( 1996) ( di scussi ng pr act i ce) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Romano, 137

F. 3d 677, 680- 81 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) ( si mi l ar ) .

The exi st ence of t hi s aut hor i t y, however , does not gi ve

t he cour t s of appeal s f r ee r ei n. To det er mi ne whet her t he

ci r cumst ances of a par t i cul ar case cr eat e an envi r onment sui t abl e

f or t he exer ci se of sect i on 2106 aut hor i t y, t he cour t s have

devel oped a mul t i - st ep t est . See, e. g. , Rut l edge, 517 U. S. at 305

n. 15; Al l i son v. Uni t ed St at es, 409 F. 2d 445, 451 ( D. C. Ci r . 1969)

( per cur i am) . Al t hough t hi s cour t has not yet had t he occasi on t o

speak t o t hi s t est , we hol d t oday, as have many of our si st er

ci r cui t s, see, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Roj as Al var ez, 451 F. 3d 320,

328 ( 5t h Ci r . 2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Dhi nsa, 243 F. 3d 635, 674- 75

( 2d Ci r . 2001) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Smi t h, 13 F. 3d 380, 383 ( 10t h Ci r .

1993) ; Al l i son, 409 F. 2d at 451; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Pet er sen, 622 F. 3d 196, 206- 07 & n. 6 ( 3d Ci r . 2010) ( appl yi ng

modi f i ed ver si on of t est ) , t hat t he mul t i - st ep t est pr ovi des t he

pr oper anal yt i c f r amewor k i n a sect i on 2106 i nqui r y.

We synt hesi ze t he t eachi ngs of t he case l aw. The mul t i -

st ep t est demands an i nqui r y, f i r st , i nt o whet her t he t r i al

evi dence f ai l s t o suppor t one or more el ement s necessary to the

convi ct i on. I f not , f ur t her i nqui r y i s unwar r ant ed. I f , however ,

t hi s f i r st st ep i s sat i sf i ed, we pr oceed t o ask, second, whet her

t he t r i al evi dence i s suf f i ci ent t o sust ai n each and ever y el ement

of a di f f er ent of f ense; t hi r d, whet her t hat di f f er ent of f ense i s a

- 10-



l esser i ncl uded of f ense of t he of f ense of convi ct i on; and f our t h,

whet her any i nj ust i ce or unf ai r pr ej udi ce wi l l i nur e t o t he

def endant by di r ect i ng t he ent r y of a convi ct i on f or t he l esser

i ncl uded of f ense. We admi ni st er t hi s t est her e.

I n t he case at hand, t he f i r st and t hi r d f act or s need not

det ai n us. As t o t he f i r st f act or , we al r eady have concl uded t hat

t he evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he yout h cent er

pr oxi mi t y el ement of a sect i on 860( a) of f ense. See supr a Par t

I I ( A) . As t o t he t hi r d f act or , i t i s nose- on- t he- f ace pl ai n t hat

a sect i on 841( a) ( 1) vi ol at i on i s a l esser i ncl uded of f ense of

sect i on 860( a) because t he el ement s of t he f ormer are a subset of

t he el ement s of t he l at t er . See Uni t ed St at es v. J ones, 489 F. 3d

243, 254 ( 6t h Ci r . 2007) ; Uni t ed St at es v. J ackson, 443 F. 3d 293,

301 ( 3d Ci r . 2006) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Car pent er , 422 F. 3d 738, 747

( 8t h Ci r . 2005) ; Uni t ed St ates v. Kakat i n, 214 F. 3d 1049, 1051 ( 9t h

Ci r . 2000) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Par ker , 30 F. 3d 542, 553 ( 4t h Ci r .

1994) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Fr eyre- Lazaro, 3 F. 3d 1496, 1507 ( 11t h Ci r .

1993) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Fent on, 367 F. 3d 14, 24 ( 1st Ci r .

2004) ( agr eei ng wi t h par t i es' concessi on on poi nt ) .

The second f act or r equi r es consi derat i on of whether t he

evi dence woul d cl ear l y suppor t a convi ct i on under sect i on

841( a) ( 1) . The def endant does not gai nsay t he dr ug market ' s

oper at i on but , r at her , asser t s t hat no cr edi bl e evi dence

est abl i shes t hat he pl ayed any par t i n t he conspi r acy.

- 11-



To count er t hi s asser t i on, t he gover nment r el i es

pr i nci pal l y on t he t est i mony of a t r i o of cooper at i ng

coconspi r ators ( Soni a Or t i z, Lui s Camacho, and Roy Román De J esús) .

Each of t hese i ndi vi dual s wor ked at t he dr ug poi nt i n some

capaci t y, and each t est i f i ed ext ensi vel y about i t s oper at i ons. The

t hr ee coconspi r at or s i dent i f i ed t he def endant as a mar i j uana

suppl i er t o, and a co- owner of , t he dr ug poi nt . Unl ess ther e i s

some basi s f or di sr egar di ng i t , t hi s evi dence suf f i ces t o def eat

t he def endant ' s cl ai m of evi dent i ar y i nsuf f i ci ency.

The def endant cont ends, t hough, t hat t hi s i ncul pat or y

t est i mony i s not cr edi t wor t hy. He ar gues t hat t hese wi t nesses had

l i t t l e or no per sonal knowl edge of hi s r ol e i n t he busi ness but ,

r at her , si mpl y par r ot ed what t hey had hear d f r om ot her s. For

exampl e, Or t i z t est i f i ed t hat J i mmy Fi guer oa, anot her

coconspi r at or , "t ol d me [ t hat t he def endant ] i s st i l l t he owner of

t he dr ug poi nt . " Si mi l ar l y, Camacho t est i f i ed t hat Or t i z and some

pusher s at t he dr ug poi nt had spoken t o hi m about t he def endant ' s

l eader shi p r ol e i n t he dr ug- di st r i but i on r i ng. Ot her exampl es

abound.

The di st r i ct cour t admi t t ed t he di sput ed st at ements i nt o

evi dence af t er conduct i ng a car ef ul i nqui r y under Uni t ed St at es v.

Pet r ozzi el l o, 548 F. 2d 20, 22- 23 ( 1st Ci r . 1977) . 2 I t conf i r med

2 Under Pet r ozzi el l o and i t s pr ogeny, " [ t ] he pr oponent of t hest atement bears t he bur den of est abl i shi ng, by a pr eponder ance of evi dence, t hat a conspi r acy embr aci ng both t he decl arant and t he

- 12-



t hat each out - of - cour t st atement was made by a coconspi r ator dur i ng

and i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy. See Fed. R. Evi d.

801( d) ( 2) ( E) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Pi per , 298 F. 3d 47, 51- 52 ( 1st Ci r .

2002) . The def endant nei t her chal l enges t he cour t ' s Pet r ozzi el l o

det er mi nat i ons nor ar t i cul at es any pl ausi bl e r at i onal e f or

di sr egar di ng t hose car ef ul l y compi l ed f i ndi ngs. The chal l enged

t est i mony was, t her ef or e, not hear say and admi ssi bl e f or t he t r ut h

of t he mat t er asser t ed pur suant t o t he di ct at es of Rul e

801( d) ( 2) ( E) . See Uni t ed St at es v. Sánchez- Ber r í os, 424 F. 3d 65,

74- 75 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ; Or t i z, 966 F. 2d at 714- 16.

Undaunted, t he def endant makes t he cur i ous ar gument t hat ,

even i f t hi s t est i mony was not excl udabl e as hear say, i t r est ed on

r umor and, t hus, was i nsuf f i ci ent l y r el i abl e t o war r ant a gui l t y

ver di ct . Thi s ar gument l acks f or ce. Wi t hi n wi de l i mi t s, not

appr oached her e, i t i s t he j ur y' s r ol e — not t he r ol e of an

appel l at e cour t — t o det er mi ne t he wei ght t o be gi ven t o a

wi t ness' s test i mony and t o assess t he wi t ness' s cr edi bi l i t y. See

def endant exi st ed, and that t he decl ar ant ut t er ed the st at ementdur i ng and i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy. " Uni t ed St at es v.Br adshaw, 281 F. 3d 178, 283 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ( i nt er nal quot at i onmar ks omi t t ed) . Such st at ement s ar e t ypi cal l y admi t t edcondi t i onal l y, subj ect t o a l at er f i ndi ng by t he cour t , suppor t ed

by ext r i nsi c evi dence ( ot her t han t he st at ement s t hemsel ves) ,"suf f i ci ent t o del i neat e t he conspi r acy and cor r obor at e t hedecl ar ant ' s and t he def endant ' s r ol es i n i t . " Uni t ed St at es v.Pi per , 298 F. 3d 47, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) . "The t r i al cour t ' s f i naldet er mi nat i on i s known i n t hi s ci r cui t as a Pet r ozzi el l odet er mi nat i on. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pér ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1stCi r . 2003) .

- 13-



Uni t ed St at es v. Luna, 649 F. 3d 91, 101 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. O' Br i en, 14 F. 3d 703, 707 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . Thus, even

t he uncor r obor at ed account of a si ngl e coconspi r ator can gr ound a

convi ct i on i f credi t ed by t he f act f i nder . See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es

v. Mei ses, 645 F. 3d 5, 12 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Tor r es-

Gal i ndo, 206 F. 3d 136, 139- 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2000) .

I n t hi s i nst ance, t he r ecor d cont ai ns t he account s of not

one but t hr ee par t i ci pant s i n t he conspi r acy, al l of whom

i ncr i mi nat e t he def endant . The t est i mony of each of t hese

wi t nesses cor r obor at es t he ot her s' t est i mony. The r ecor d al so

cont ai ns ci r cumst ant i al evi dence t endi ng t o suppor t an i nf er ence of

t he def endant ' s par t i ci pat i on i n t he dr ug t r ade, such as hi s

possessi on of a money count i ng machi ne and t he presence of secr et

compar t ment s i n hi s car .

To say mor e on t hi s poi nt woul d be super er ogator y.

Sust ai ni ng a convi ct i on r equi r es onl y that , "eschewi ng credi bi l i t y

j udgments and dr awi ng al l r easonabl e i nf er ences i n f avor of t he

ver di ct , " a r at i onal j ur y coul d have f ound t he def endant gui l t y

based on t he pr oof pr esent ed. Uni t ed St ates v. Sepul veda, 15 F. 3d

1161, 1173 ( 1st Ci r . 1993) . Measur ed agai nst t hi s benchmark, t he

evi dence her e suppor t s a f i ndi ng of t he def endant ' s gui l t wi t h

r espect t o both conspi r acy t o commi t and ai di ng and abet t i ng dr ug

di str i but i on s i mpl i ci t er .

- 14-



Thi s l eaves onl y t he f our t h component of t he t est . That

f act or i s sat i sf i ed because, i n t he ci r cumst ances of t hi s case, t he

def endant woul d not be unf ai r l y pr ej udi ced by an or der hol di ng hi m

r esponsi bl e f or a l esser i ncl uded of f ense. Af t er al l , r ef er ences

t o sect i on 841( a) ( 1) ar e f eat ur ed pr omi nent l y i n t he i ndi ct ment ,

and al l of t he el ement s of a sect i on 841( a) ( 1) char ge ar e

encompassed wi t hi n a sect i on 860( a) char ge. I t f ol l ows t hat t he

def endant had not i ce of t hose el ement s and bot h oppor t uni t y and

i ncent i ve t o def end agai nst t hem. 3 See Smi t h, 13 F. 3d at 383.

Her e, mor eover , t he def endant f ul l y avai l ed hi msel f of

t hat oppor t uni t y. He vi gorousl y cont est ed many of t he common

el ement s of t he char ge, i ncl udi ng t he gover nment ' s al l egat i ons as

t o hi s r ol e i n t he unl awf ul dr ug di st r i but i on ent er pr i se. The

def endant of f er s no pl ausi bl e r eason t o bel i eve t hat hi s def ense

woul d have been mater i al l y di f f er ent had t he i ndi ct ment f ocused on

sect i on 841( a) ( 1) r at her t han on sect i on 860( a) .

To ci nch mat t er s, t he speci al ver di ct f or m yi el ds

st eadf ast assur ance that t he j ur y must have f ound f act s beyond a

r easonabl e doubt on al l t he el ement s needed t o convi ct f or t he

l esser i ncl uded of f ense. We concl ude, t her ef or e, t hat t he ent r y of

3 The appel l ant di d not choose t o or der a t r anscr i pt of t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons, see Fed. R. App. P. 10( b) ( 1) , but ot hermat er i al s i n t he r ecor d make i t appear ver y l i kel y t hat a l esseri ncl uded of f ense i nst r uct i on was not gi ven. We do not pur sue t hepoi nt , however , because t he pr esence or absence of such ani nst r uct i on woul d not mat er i al l y i mpact our pr ej udi ce anal ysi s i nt hi s case.

- 15-



a convi ct i on under sect i on 841( a) ( 1) woul d not wor k any i nj ust i ce.

See Roj as Al var ez, 451 F. 3d at 328- 29 ( vacat i ng convi ct i on under

sect i on 860( a) and di r ect i ng ent r y of l esser i ncl uded of f ense

convi ct i on under sect i on 841( a) ( 1) ) ; Par ker , 30 F. 3d at 553 ( same) ;

Smi t h, 13 F. 3d at 383 ( same) .

Thi s br i ngs us f ul l ci r cl e. Because ever y aspect of t he

mul t i - st ep t est has been sat i sf i ed her e, we vacat e t he convi ct i ons

t o t he extent t hat t hey embody a f i ndi ng of pr oxi mi t y t o a yout h

cent er ( sect i on 860( a) ) and di r ect t he ent r y of convi ct i ons f or

conspi r acy and ai di ng and abet t i ng wi t h r espect t o t he di st r i but i on

of dr ugs si mpl i ci t er ( sect i on 841( a) ( 1) ) .

III. ALLEGED TRIAL ERRORS

The def endant advances t hr ee cl ai ms of t r i al er r or . We

addr ess t hese cl ai ms separ at el y.

A. Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct.

The def endant aver s t hat t he pr osecut or f r ust r at ed t he

f ai r ness of hi s t r i al by maki ng i mproper head and eye movement s

dur i ng wi t ness t est i mony, obj ect i ng i ndi scr i mi nat el y dur i ng def ense

counsel ' s openi ng st at ement and cl osi ng ar gument , and empl oyi ng an

i nappr opr i at e anal ogy dur i ng r ebut t al . Pr eser ved cl ai ms of

pr osecut or i al mi sconduct are r evi ewed de novo. See Uni t ed St ates

v. Ayal a- Gar cí a, 574 F. 3d 5, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Unpr eser ved

cl ai ms ar e r evi ewed onl y f or pl ai n er r or . See Sánchez- Ber r í os, 424

F. 3d at 73; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Duar t e, 246 F. 3d 56, 60 ( 1st

- 16-



Ci r . 2001) ( l i mni ng pl ai n er r or st andar d) . Her e, however , t hi s

di st i nct i on i s academi c because we di scer n no er r or , pl ai n or

ot her wi se.

We begi n wi t h t he def endant ' s al l egat i on t hat t he

prosecut or nodded her head and used eye movement s t o i ndi cat e

agr eement whi l e cooper at i ng wi t nesses wer e test i f yi ng, t hus

si mul t aneousl y l eadi ng and vouchi ng f or t hem. I t i s a basel i ne

r ul e t hat a pr osecut or may not "pl ace[ ] t he pr est i ge of her of f i ce

behi nd t he gover nment ' s case by, say, i mpar t i ng her per sonal bel i ef

i n a wi t ness' s ver aci t y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Pér ez- Rui z, 353 F. 3d 1,

9 ( 1st Ci r . 2003) . Head- noddi ng and eye movement s, such as ar e

al l eged her e, t heor et i cal l y can cross t hi s l i ne and can const i t ut e

i mpr oper vouchi ng. See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Col l i ns, 78 F. 3d

1021, 1039 ( 6t h Ci r . 1996) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bermea, 30 F. 3d 1539,

1563 ( 5t h Ci r . 1994) . Coachi ng wi t nesses t hr ough, say, head-

noddi ng and eye movement s i s di f f erent t han vouchi ng — but usi ng

gest ur es f or t hat pur pose i s equal l y i mpr oper . See, e. g. , Uni t ed

St at es v. Casas, 425 F. 3d 23, 46- 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) .

The pr obl em here i s t hat t he def endant made no

cont empor aneous obj ect i ons t o any i nst ances of supposed vouchi ng or

coachi ng. Whi l e he t wi ce voi ced accusat i ons of t hi s sor t t o t he

di st r i ct cour t , he wai t ed on each occasi on unt i l days af t er t he

chal l enged conduct al l egedl y occur r ed. These obj ect i ons wer e t oo

- 17-



l i t t l e and t oo l at e, and t he r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence t hat any

head- noddi ng or ot her i nappr opr i at e gest ur es ever occur r ed.

Al t hough t hi s absence of r ecord evi dence i s enough t o

def eat t he def endant ' s cl ai m, t her e i s more. When t he def endant

voi ced hi s bel at ed obj ect i on f or t he second t i me, t he t r i al j udge

( an ast ut e and exper i enced j ur i st ) st at ed t hat she had "been

keepi ng an eye on ever yone" and had not obser ved any i mpropr i et y.

The def endant has of f er ed us no sound r eason f or second- guess i ng

t hat f i r st - hand assessment .

The def endant next compl ai ns t hat t he pr osecut or t ai nt ed

t he t r i al by obj ect i ng t en t i mes dur i ng hi s counsel ' s openi ng

st at ement and sevent een t i mes dur i ng hi s counsel ' s cl osi ng.

Al t hough const ant , over zeal ous, and unwarr ant ed obj ect i ons may

unf ai r l y i mpai r a def endant ' s r i ght t o a f ai r t r i al , cf . Uni t ed

St at es v. Young, 470 U. S. 1, 13 ( 1985) ( expl ai ni ng t hat

" i nt er r upt i ons of ar gument s . . . ar e mat t er s t o be appr oached

caut i ousl y") , we ar e unabl e t o f i nd any mi sconduct her e. Most of

t he obj ect i ons about whi ch the def endant compl ai ns wer e ei t her

sust ai ned by t he cour t or el i ci t ed cl ar i f i cat i ons. The r est seem

wel l wi t hi n t he pal e. Counsel shoul d not be hel d t o st andar ds of

per f ect i on, cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Pol i t o, 856 F. 2d 414, 418 ( 1st

Ci r . 1988) ( expl ai ni ng t hat a cr i mi nal def endant i s ent i t l ed t o a

f ai r t r i al , not necessar i l y a per f ect t r i al ) , and t he f ai l ed

obj ect i ons her e do not seem so gr oundl ess as t o be vexat i ous.

- 18-



The def endant ' s cat er waul i ng about t he pr osecut or ' s

chosen anal ogy f ares no bet t er . The gover nment ' s case was bui l t

l ar gel y on t he t est i mony of t hr ee r el at i vel y l ow- l evel

coconspi r at or s who i dent i f i ed t he def endant as a co- owner of t he

dr ug poi nt . Dur i ng t he t r i al , t he def endant at t empt ed t o under cut

t hi s t est i mony by st r essi ng t hat t he cooper at i ng wi t nesses had

l i t t l e or no per sonal cont act wi t h hi m. I n her f i nal r ebut t al

ar gument , t he pr osecut or r ej oi ned by l i keni ng t he def endant t o t he

chi ef execut i ve of f i cer of a l ar ge, mul t i - br anch bank: t hough

ordi nary br anch empl oyees may not ever see t he chi ef execut i ve

of f i cer "f i l l i ng up t he ATM machi nes, " t hey st i l l know t hat "he i s

t he boss. "

Al t hough the def endant now argues t hat t hi s anal ogy was

i napt , he di d not obj ect t o i t at t r i al . I n t hi s i nst ance, t he

pr osecut or ' s anal ogy was not per f ect —i ndeed, f ew anal ogi es are —

but i t ef f ect i vel y conveyed t o t he j ur y t he possi bi l i t y t hat l ow-

l evel empl oyees can have knowl edge about an organi zat i on' s

l eader shi p wi t hout havi ng any per sonal i nt er act i on wi t h t he l eader .

We di scer n no pr osecut or i al mi sconduct . 4

4 I n al l event s, an unpr eser ved obj ect i on t o a cl osi ngar gument r equi r es r ever sal of a convi ct i on "onl y i f t hei l l egi t i mat e por t i on of t he . . . ar gument so poi soned t he wel lt 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. Tayl or , 54 F. 3d 967, 977 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ksomi t t ed) . I t i s not hi ng shor t of f anci f ul t o suggest t hat t hepr osecut or ' s anal ogy mi ght have had so damagi ng an ef f ect .

- 19-



B. The Jencks Claim.

We t ur n now t o t he def endant ' s cl ai m t hat , despi t e a

t i mel y request f or di scl osur e, t he gover nment f ai l ed t o pr oduce

cer t ai n mat er i al s, i n vi ol at i on of t he J encks Act , 18 U. S. C.

§ 3500. The mat er i al s compr i se so- cal l ed DEA- 6 r epor t s of wi t ness

i nt er vi ews compi l ed by t he Dr ug Enf orcement Admi ni st r at i on ( DEA) .

The J encks Act obl i ges t he gover nment , once a wi t ness has

t est i f i ed, t o pr of f er upon a def endant ' s t i mel y r equest any

st at ement of t hat wi t ness i n i t s possessi on, whet her or not

excul pat or y, t hat r el at es t o t he subj ect mat t er of t he wi t ness' s

t est i mony. See i d. § 3500( b) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Col ón-

Dí az, 521 F. 3d 29, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Neal , 36

F. 3d 1190, 1197 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . The st at ut e def i nes "st at ement "

t o i ncl ude, i n addi t i on t o an adopt ed wr i t i ng of t he wi t ness or an

exact r ecor di ng of an or al pr onouncement , any cont emporaneousl y-

made r ecor di ng or t r anscr i pt i on whi ch amount s t o "a subst ant i al l y

ver bat i m r eci t al of a[ wi t ness' s] or al st at ement . " 18 U. S. C.

§ 3500( e) ; see Uni t ed St ates v. Gonzal ez- Mel endez, 570 F. 3d 1, 4

( 1st Ci r . 2009) ( per cur i am) . We r evi ew pr eserved cl ai ms of J encks

er r or f or abuse of di scr et i on, see Col ón- Dí az, 521 F. 3d at 39,

mi ndf ul t hat a mat er i al er r or of l aw i nvar i abl y const i t ut es an

abuse of di scr et i on, see Uni t ed St at es v. Snyder , 136 F. 3d 65, 67

( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

- 20-



Dur i ng t he t r i al , t he def endant made sever al r equest s f or

J encks mat er i al . Those r equest s, however , wer e not l i mi t ed t o

J encks mat er i al but si mul t aneousl y sought mat er i al pot ent i al l y

useabl e f or i mpeachment ( so- cal l ed Gi gl i o mat er i al , see Gi gl i o v.

Uni t ed St ates, 405 U. S. 150 ( 1972) ) . These combi ned r equest s

f ocused on t he DEA- 6 r epor t s, i ncl udi ng t hose cr eat ed f ol l owi ng

gover nment i nt er vi ews of t he t hr ee t est i f yi ng coconspi r at or s.

The t r i al j udge, t r ampi ng down a wel l - t r od pat h, see

Pal er mo v. Uni t ed St ates, 360 U. S. 343, 354 ( 1959) , conduct ed a

car ef ul i n camer a r evi ew of t he DEA- 6 r epor t s. She or der ed

di scl osur e of t wo r epor t s, pr esumabl y as Gi gl i o mat er i al , whi ch

cont ai ned pot ent i al cont r adi ct i ons of a gover nment wi t ness' s

t est i mony. She r ef used t o or der product i on of t he r emai ni ng

r epor t s, i mpl i edl y f i ndi ng t hat t hose r epor t s di d not const i t ut e

J encks mat er i al . The def endant ' s chal l enge i s addr essed t o t hi s

i mpl i ed f i ndi ng; no Gi gl i o chal l enge i s advanced.

We di scer n no abuse of di scr et i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

r ef usal t o or der pr oduct i on of t he DEA- 6 r epor t s under t he J encks

Act . We have exami ned t he DEA- 6 r epor t s t hat wer e preser ved f or

appel l at e r evi ew, and we f i nd t hem t o be nar r at i ve summar i es

pr epar ed by DEA agent s. They are not subst ant i al l y ver bat i m

wi t ness account s. We t her ef or e concl ude, as di d t he Fi f t h Ci r cui t

when conf r ont ed wi t h a gr oup of DEA- 6 r epor t s, t hat t he r epor t s

wi t hhel d ar e not J encks mat er i al at al l but , r at her , "shor t ,

- 21-



conci se, summar i es of t he wi t nesses' ver si on of t he f act s as

r ecount ed t o t he agent s. " Uni t ed St at es v. Wei nt r aub, 871 F. 2d

1257, 1260 ( 5t h Ci r . 1989) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) .

J encks onl y i nur es t o st at ements t hat can " f ai r l y be sai d t o be t he

wi t ness' own r at her t han t he pr oduct of t he i nvest i gat or ' s

sel ect i ons, i nt er pr et at i ons, and i nt er pol at i ons. " Pal er mo, 360

U. S. at 350. The DEA- 6 r epor t s at i ssue her e do not pass t hr ough

t hi s screen.

C. Multiplication Evidence.

The def endant ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i n

admi t t i ng cer t ai n aspect s of t he test i mony of a f or ensi c chemi st

cal l ed by t he gover nment . The chemi st , af t er bei ng qual i f i ed as an

exper t , t est i f i ed as t o t he aver age per - bag wei ght s of mar i j uana

cont ai ned i n t he smal l and l ar ge bags habi t ual l y sol d at t he dr ug

poi nt . The def endant presses no obj ect i on t o t hi s t est i mony.

Ther e was evi dence, apar t f r om t he chemi st ' s t est i mony,

t hat at l east 250 bags of each si ze wer e sol d at t he dr ug poi nt

ever y day over t he l i f e of t he conspi r acy. Usi ng t hi s evi dence as

a f oundat i on, t he pr osecut or asked t he wi t ness t o per f or m some

basi c mul t i pl i cat i on. Thi s i ncl uded mul t i pl yi ng t he wei ght t hat

t he wi t ness had ascr i bed t o a t ypi cal smal l bag by 250

( r epr esent i ng dai l y smal l - bag sal es) , mul t i pl yi ng t he wei ght

ascr i bed t o a t ypi cal l ar ge bag by 250 ( r epr esent i ng dai l y l ar ge-

bag sal es) , mul t i pl yi ng each of t hose subt ot al s by 365

- 22-



( r epr esent i ng days i n a year ) , and t hen mul t i pl yi ng each of t hose

subt ot al s by ni ne ( r epr esent i ng year s of oper at i on) . The

gover nment el i ci t ed t hi s t est i mony i n an appar ent ef f or t t o

est i mat e how much mar i j uana had been sol d over t he l i f e of t he

conspi r acy.

The def endant ' s f i r st obj ect i on i s t hat t hi s evi dence had

a t endency t o mi sl ead or conf use t he j ur y because t he under l yi ng

sal es vol ume and years of oper at i on wer e i n di sput e. Al t hough t he

def endant does not speci f i cal l y i nvoke Feder al Rul e of Evi dence

403, hi s ar gument seems t o be t hat any pr obat i ve val ue t hat t he

evi dence mi ght have had was subst ant i al l y out wei ghed by i t s

capaci t y t o mi sl ead or conf use t he j ur y.

Appel l at e r evi ew of di st r i ct cour t r ul i ngs admi t t i ng or

excl udi ng evi dence under t he aegi s of Rul e 403 st ar t s wi t h a

r ecogni t i on t hat a t r i al j udge i s i n t he best posi t i on t o assess

t he col l at er al ef f ect s of pr of f er ed t est i mony. See Uni t ed St at es

v. Raymond, 697 F. 3d 32, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) . "Onl y r ar el y —and i n

ext r aor di nar i l y compel l i ng ci r cumst ances — wi l l we, f r omt he vi st a

of a col d appel l at e r ecor d, r ever se a di st r i ct cour t ' s on- t he- spot

j udgment concer ni ng t he r el at i ve wei ghi ng of pr obat i ve val ue and

unf ai r ef f ect . " Uni t ed St at es v. Pi r es, 642 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) ( quot i ng Fr eeman v. Package Mach. Co. , 865 F. 2d 1331, 1340

( 1st Ci r . 1988) ) .

- 23-



The r ecor d here of f er s no r eason f or di st ur bi ng t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s Rul e 403 det er mi nat i ons. The f oundat i onal

quant i t y- and- t i me evi dence rel i ed on by t he gover nment was i n the

r ecor d. Al t hough t hese f act s wer e not gospel —i t r emai ned f or t he

j ur y t o deci de whet her t o accept or r ej ect t hem — t he di r ect

exami nat i on was car ef ul l y phr ased so t hat t he chemi st , by doi ng t he

r equest ed mul t i pl i cat i on, was not vouchi ng f or component s such as

how much busi ness was t r ansact ed at t he drug poi nt or how l ong t he

conspi r acy l ast ed. And t he def ense was f r ee t o bui l d i t s own

t heor y, aski ng t he chemi st on cr oss- exami nat i on t o mul t i pl y by

smal l er number s or f ewer year s. I t di d not expl oi t t hi s

oppor t uni t y.

The def endant has anot her st r i ng t o hi s bow: he ar gues

t hat t he mul t i pl i cat i on evi dence was i ncor r ect l y admi t t ed as Rul e

702 exper t t est i mony. Thi s ar gument , t oo, i s f ut i l e.

The def endant posi t s t hat t he t est i mony was out si de t he

chemi st ' s f i el d of exper t i se and, t hus, out si de t he scope of Rul e

702. But t he Evi dence Rul es do "not di st i ngui sh bet ween exper t and

l ay wi t nesses, but r at her bet ween exper t and l ay t est i mony [ so] i t

i s possi bl e f or t he same wi t ness t o pr ovi de bot h l ay and exper t

t est i mony i n a si ngl e case. " Fed. R. Evi d. 701 advi sor y

commi t t ee' s note on the 2000 amendment s ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .

The r ecor d i s i ndi st i nct as t o whether t he chal l enged

mul t i pl i cat i on t est i mony was admi t t ed as exper t t est i mony under

- 24-



Rul e 702 or as l ay opi ni on t est i mony under Rul e 701. We st ar t ,

t her ef or e, by cl ar i f yi ng t hat poi nt .

"The l i ne between exper t t est i mony under Fed. R. Evi d.

702 . . . and l ay opi ni on t est i mony under Fed. R. Evi d. 701

. . . i s not easy t o dr aw . . . . " Uni t ed St at es v. Col ón Osor i o,

360 F. 3d 48, 52- 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Be t hat as i t may, we have

scant di f f i cul t y i n concl udi ng t hat Rul e 701 i s t he bet t er f i t f or

si mpl e mul t i pl i cat i on of t he sor t t hat t he chemi st per f or med her e.

Lay opi ni on i s gener al l y t hought t o encompass i nf or mat i on t hat can

be deduced " f r oma pr ocess of r easoni ng f ami l i ar i n ever yday l i f e. "

Fed. R. Evi d. 701 advi sor y commi t t ee' s not e on t he 2000 amendment s

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar k omi t t ed) . Si mpl e ar i t hmet i c, such as

or di nar y mul t i pl i cat i on, i s a par adi gmat i c exampl e of t he t ype of

ever yday act i vi t y t hat goes on i n the normal cour se of human

exi st ence. One does not need a gr aduat e degr ee i n chemi st r y t o

mast er mul t i pl i cat i on: i n t hi s count r y, t hat subj ect i s uni ver sal l y

t aught i n el ement ar y school s. Wi t hout such a r udi ment ar y ski l l ,

or di nar y t asks such as f i gur i ng a f ami l y' s budget , shoppi ng i n a

super mar ket , and conver t i ng a r eci pe f or f our i nt o a meal f or t en

woul d assume Hercul ean propor t i ons.

The bot t oml i ne i s t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not abuse

i t s di scr et i on i n per mi t t i ng t he chemi st t o per f or m si mpl e

mul t i pl i cat i on. Nor di d i t abuse i t s di scr et i on i n admi t t i ng t he

pr oduct s of t he chemi st ' s mul t i pl i cat i on as l ay opi ni on test i mony.

- 25-



IV. SENTENCING ISSUES

The def endant at t empt s t o r ai se t wo sentenci ng i ssues.

However , t he f i r st of t hese i s a non- i ssue: t hough t he def endant

pr ot est s t hat hi s 210- mont h i ncar cer at i ve sent ence i s subst ant i vel y

unr easonabl e, our vacat i on of t he sect i on 860( a) convi ct i ons and

our di r ect i on t o ent er i nst ead sect i on 841( a) ( 1) convi ct i ons, see

supr a Par t I I , r equi r e r esent enci ng. See Uni t ed St at es v. Gar cí a-

Or t i z, 657 F. 3d 25, 31 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( cal l i ng f or r esent enci ng

when par t i al l y successf ul appeal l i kel y af f ect s t he "sent enci ng

package") . Because i t i s unl i kel y t hat t he same sent ence wi l l be

i mposed f or t hese l esser char ges, eval uat i ng t he subst ant i ve

r easonabl eness of t he or i gi nal sent ence woul d be a pur el y academi c

exer ci se. See Uni t ed St at es v. Wal l ace, 461 F. 3d 15, 45 ( 1st Ci r .

2006) .

Thi s l eaves t he def endant ' s chal l enge t o t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s dr ug- quant i t y det er mi nat i on. Even t hough r esent enci ng i s

r equi r ed, t hi s cl ai m of er r or remai ns l i ve. Af t er al l , dr ug

quant i t y i s l i kel y t o f or m an i nt egr al par t of t he r evi sed

sent enci ng cal cul us. Cf . Uni t ed St at es v. Vent ur a, 353 F. 3d 84, 87

( 1st Ci r . 2003) ( expl ai ni ng t hat dr ug quant i t y i s an i mpor t ant

sent enci ng f act or i n nar cot i cs cases) .

I n a dr ug conspi r acy case, set t i ng t he def endant ' s

gui del i ne r ange r equi r es an at t r i but i on t o hi m of t he amount of

dr ugs t hat wer e r easonabl y f oreseeabl e t o hi m. See Uni t ed St ates

- 26-



v. Col ón- Sol í s, 354 F. 3d 101, 103 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . We r evi ew a

sent enci ng cour t ' s dr ug- quant i t y at t r i but i on f or cl ear er r or . See

Uni t ed St at es v. Pl at t e, 577 F. 3d 387, 392 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Thi s

r evi ew i s def er ent i al , and t he di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on wi l l

be uphel d "so l ong as t he appr oxi mat i on r epr esent s a r easoned

est i mat e of act ual quant i t y. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ci nt r ón- Echaut egui ,

604 F. 3d 1, 6- 7 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) .

The cour t bel ow st ar t ed f r om t he suppor t abl e f oundat i on

t hat , on aver age, t he smal l bags of mar i j uana sol d at t he dr ug

poi nt wei ghed 0. 59 grams and t he l ar ge bags wei ghed 1. 51 grams

api ece. The cour t t hen expl ai ned t hat both ki nds of bags wer e

del i ver ed t o t he dr ug poi nt i n l ar ger "bundl es, " wi t h each bundl e

compr i si ng 25 bags. The dr ug poi nt oper ated around t he cl ock, i n

12- hour shi f t s. The cour t est i mat ed t hat f i ve bundl es of smal l

bags and t wo bundl es of l arge bags were sol d dur i ng a t ypi cal

shi f t . Not i ng t hat t he dr ug poi nt had oper at ed 7 days per week, 52

weeks per year f r om 1999 t hr ough 2008, t he cour t made a ser i es of

cal cul at i ons and ar r i ved at a t ot al dr ug quant i t y of 977 ki l ogr ams

of mar i j uana. I n l i ght of t he def endant ' s st at us as bot h t he

conspi r acy' s mar i j uana suppl i er and a co- owner of t he dr ug poi nt ,

t he cour t f ound t hat t hi s quant i t y was r easonabl y f or eseeabl e to

hi m.

The def endant ' s assaul t on t hi s dr ug- quant i t y cal cul at i on

cent er s on t he f act ual pr edi cat e empl oyed by t he sent enci ng cour t .

- 27-



Thi s assaul t st ar t s wi t h t he cour t ' s use of a ni ne- year f i gur e as

t he mul t i pl i er r epr esent i ng t he l i f e of t he conspi r acy. He i nsi st s

t hat , r egar dl ess of how l ong t he conspi r acy l ast ed, no wi t ness

dat ed hi s par t i ci pat i on i n i t t o any t i me bef or e 2000.

Even i f we accept t he f actual pr emi se on whi ch t hi s

argument r est s, t he ar gument does not t ake t he def endant ver y f ar .

Test i mony f r oma coconspi r at or ( Or t i z) pl aces t he def endant i n t he

conspi r acy no l at er t han t he begi nni ng of 2000; and t he recor d

suppor t s a f i ndi ng t hat t he def endant cont i nued t o toi l wi t hi n t he

conspi r acy unt i l hi s ar r est i n November 2008. Thi s i s an i nt er val

of r oughl y ni ne year s, so the sent enci ng cour t ' s use of a ni ne- year

mul t i pl i er was not cl ear l y er r oneous.

The def endant next quest i ons t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

concl usi on t hat each bundl e was composed of 25 bags. Whi l e he

admi t s t hat one of t he coconspi r at or s t est i f i ed t o t hi s bundl e

si ze, he poi nt s out t hat ot her coconspi r at or s t est i f i ed

di f f er ent l y. Thi s ar gument i s mer i t l ess. "[ I ] f t her e ar e t wo

pl ausi bl e vi ews of t he r ecor d, t he sent enci ng cour t ' s choi ce

bet ween t hem cannot be cl ear l y er r oneous. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Sant os, 357 F. 3d 136, 141 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) .

The t hi r d br anch of t he def endant ' s at t ack opens a new

f r ont . The r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat , af t er 2005, t he def endant r ent ed

t he dr ug poi nt t o ot her s, r at her t han oper at i ng i t hi msel f . He

- 28-



ar gues t hat he shoul d not be hel d f ul l y responsi bl e f or t he dr ugs

sol d by hi s t enant s.

The def endant ' s t hesi s i s wr ong. The r el evant i nqui r y

f or sent enci ng pur poses i s not l i mi t ed t o t he quant i t y of dr ugs

per sonal l y handl ed by t he def endant or hi s di r ect subor di nat es but ,

r at her , encompasses t he ent i r e quant i t y of dr ugs t hat t he def endant

coul d reasonabl y f or esee woul d be wi t hi n the ambi t of t he

conspi r acy. See Uni t ed St at es v. Cor t és- Cabán, 691 F. 3d 1, 27 ( 1st

Ci r . 2012) , cer t . deni ed, 131 S. Ct . 2765 ( 2013) ; Col ón- Sol í s, 354

F. 3d at 103 & n. 2. The def endant was st i l l par t of t he conspi r acy

whi l e r ent i ng t he dr ug poi nt , and t he r ecor d l eaves l i t t l e r oom t o

doubt t hat he was aware of ( and, t hus, coul d f oresee) t he amount of

dr ugs sol d by hi s t enant s. No mor e was exi gi bl e t o under gi r d t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s dr ug- quant i t y at t r i but i on f or t he per i od when t he

r ent al agr eement was i n ef f ect .

We add a coda. On t hi s r ecor d, t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

dr ug- quant i t y f i ndi ng was not onl y f ul l y suppor t abl e but al so

ext r emel y conser vat i ve. The r ecord makes mani f est t hat a

consi der abl e vol ume of cr ack cocai ne was sol d at La Tr ocha on the

def endant ' s wat ch. Yet , t he cour t made no r ef er ence at al l t o t he

def endant ' s cul pabi l i t y f or t hi s subst ant i al amount of cont r aband.

V. FORFEITURE

The def endant ' s f i nal cl ai m of er r or r el at es t o

f or f ei t ur e. He says t hat t he $1, 000, 000 f or f ei t ur e j udgment

- 29-



vi ol at es t he Excessi ve Fi nes Cl ause of t he Const i t ut i on, U. S.

Const . amend. VI I I .

The f or f ei t ur e i n t hi s case cl ear l y const i t ut ed

puni shment f or an of f ense. I t f ol l owed t he def endant ' s convi ct i on

on f el ony char ges and was i mposed as par t of hi s sent ence. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Baj akaj i an, 524 U. S. 321, 328 ( 1998) ; Uni t ed

St ates v. Hel deman, 402 F. 3d 220, 223 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . The

Excessi ve Fi nes Cl ause pr oscr i bes a cr i mi nal f or f ei t ur e j udgment

f or an amount t hat i s " gr ossl y di spr opor t i onal t o t he gr avi t y of

[ t he under l yi ng] of f ense. " Baj akaj i an, 524 U. S. at 334. Because

t he def endant cont ends f or t he f i r st t i me on appeal t hat t he

$1, 000, 000 f or f ei t ur e amount vi ol at es t hi s pr oscr i pt i on, our r evi ew

i s l i mi t ed t o pl ai n er r or . See Uni t ed St at es v. Aguasvi vas-

Cast i l l o, 668 F. 3d 7, 16 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) .

The quest i on, t hen, i s whether t he f or f ei t ur e j udgment i s

gr ossl y di spr opor t i onal t o the of f enses of convi ct i on. 5 I n

r espondi ng to t hi s quest i on, we consi der " ( 1) whet her t he def endant

f al l s i nt o t he cl ass of per sons at whom t he cr i mi nal st at ut e was

pr i nci pal l y di r ect ed; ( 2) ot her penal t i es aut hor i zed by t he

l egi sl at ur e ( or t he Sent enci ng Commi ssi on) ; and ( 3) t he har mcaused

by t he def endant . " Hel deman, 402 F. 3d at 223. When t he f or f ei t ur e

j udgment i s l ess t han t he maxi mumaut hor i zed f i ne, a def endant who

5 For t hi s pur pose, we assume, f avorabl y to the def endant ,t hat t he cor r ect compar i son i s t o t he l esser i ncl uded of f enses ( 21U. S. C. § 841( a) ( 1) ) .

- 30-



pur poses t o chal l enge i t s const i t ut i onal i t y f aces an especi al l y

st eep uphi l l cl i mb. I d. at 223 & n. 1 ( col l ect i ng cases) .

We need not t ar r y over t he f i r st f act or . Tr af f i cki ng i n

dr ugs i s conduct t hat f al l s wi t hi n t he hear t l and of t he cr i mi nal

f or f ei t ur e st at ut es. See Uni t ed St at es v. Keene, 341 F. 3d 78, 86

( 1st Ci r . 2003) . The second f act or l i kewi se f avor s the gover nment ;

t he maxi mum f i ne f or t he quant i t y of mar i j uana at t r i but abl e t o t he

def endant i s $5, 000, 000. See 21 U. S. C. § 841( b) ( 1) ( B) ; USSG

§5E1. 2( c) ( 4) . Put i n t hi s per spect i ve, a f or f ei t ur e j udgment of

$1, 000, 000 r ai ses no eyebr ows.

The t hi r d f act or i s of a pi ece wi t h t he f i r st t wo

f act or s. Dr ug t r af f i cki ng i s a scour ge and i s t he sour ce of unt ol d

harm. Gi ven t he l arge quant i t y of dr ugs pur veyed by t he conspi r acy

and t he def endant ' s l eadi ng r ol e i n t hat conspi r acy, i t st r ai ns

cr edul i t y to suggest t hat a $1, 000, 000 f i ne i s gr ossl y

di spr opor t i onat e t o t he har m i nf l i cted.

The def endant has a f al l back posi t i on. Al t hough t he

Baj akaj i an Cour t di d not expl i ci t l y so hol d, t hi s ci r cui t has

suggest ed t hat "i t i s not i nconcei vabl e t hat a f or f ei t ur e coul d be

so oner ous as t o depr i ve a def endant of hi s or her f ut ur e abi l i t y

t o ear n a l i vi ng, t hus i mpl i cat i ng t he hi st or i cal concer ns

under l yi ng t he Excessi ve Fi nes Cl ause. " Uni t ed St at es v. Levesque,

546 F. 3d 78, 85 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . The def endant mai nt ai ns t hat t he

- 31-



f or f ei t ur e j udgment i n t hi s case i s so ext r avagant as t o depr i ve

hi m of hi s l i vel i hood.

Li ke t he def endant ' s gr oss di spr opor t i onal i t y ar gument ,

t hi s ar gument was not r ai sed bel ow. Our r evi ew i s, t her ef or e,

sol el y f or pl ai n er r or . See Aguasvi vas- Cast i l l o, 668 F. 3d at 16.

We di scer n none.

Assumi ng, wi t hout deci di ng, t hat depr i vat i on of

l i vel i hood can const i t ut e a basi s f or set t i ng asi de a cri mi nal

f or f ei t ur e j udgment , one t hi ng i s cl ear : i t i s t he def endant ' s

bur den t o est abl i sh a r ecor d at t he di st r i ct cour t l evel t hat coul d

sust ai n a depr i vat i on of l i vel i hood cl ai m. See i d. I n t hi s case,

t he def endant has f ai l ed t o make such a r ecor d.

Her e, mor eover , t he di st r i ct cour t made f i ndi ngs,

war r ant ed by the evi dence, t hat dur i ng t he per i od of t he

def endant ' s i nvol vement t he conspi r acy gr ossed bet ween $6, 145, 200

and $15, 010, 600 f r ommar i j uana sal es al one. The def endant was an

equi t y par t ner , yet has not shown what happened t o hi s share of t he

pr of i t s. Wi t h t hi s unanswer ed quest i on domi nat i ng t he l andscape,

i t si mpl y cannot be sai d t hat t he r ecor d compel s a concl usi on t hat

t he f or f ei t ur e j udgment has depr i ved t he def endant of hi s

l i vel i hood.

- 32-



For t hese r easons, we l eave t he f or f ei t ur e j udgment

undi st ur bed. 6

VI. CONCLUSION

We need go no f ur t her . For t he r easons el uci dat ed above,

we vacat e t he def endant ' s convi ct i ons t o the ext ent t hat t hey

i mpl i cat e 21 U. S. C. § 860( a) and or der t he ent r y of new convi ct i ons

under 21 U. S. C. § 841( a) ( 1) . Addi t i onal l y, we r ej ect the

def endant ' s ot her cl ai ms of er r or and af f i r m t he f or f ei t ur e

j udgment . Fi nal l y, we vacat e t he def endant ' s sent ence and r emand

f or r esent enci ng on t he l esser i ncl uded of f enses.

So Ordered.

- Concurring Opinion Follows -

6 We t hi nk i t unl i kel y t hat t he subst i t ut i on of convi ct i onsf or l esser i ncl uded of f enses wi l l have any ef f ect on t he sent enci ng

cour t ' s quant i f i cat i on of t he $1, 000, 000 f or f ei t ur e amount . Cf .Uni t ed St ates v. Gar ci a Abr ego, 141 F. 3d 142, 173- 74 ( 5t h Ci r .1998) ( af f i r mi ng f or f ei t ur e j udgment , even i f based par t i al l y ondi smi ssed count s, because cor e i l l egal conduct and r esul t i ngpr oceeds wer e not i mpl i cat ed by t he di smi ssal s) . But shoul d t hecour t wi sh t o r evi si t t hi s quant i f i cat i on on r emand, i t i s f r ee t odo so.

- 33-



TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge, concurring. I j oi n i n f ul l my

col l eagues' wel l - r easoned opi ni on. I wr i t e i n concur r ence onl y t o

al er t t he di st r i ct cour t t o consi der t he pot ent i al i mpact of t he

Supr eme Cour t ' s deci si on i n Al l eyne v. Uni t ed St at es, 133 S. Ct .

2151 ( 2013) . Al l eyne r equi r es t hat al l f act s i ncr easi ng a

def endant ' s st at ut ory mi ni mum sent ence be pr oved beyond a

r easonabl e doubt . I d. at 2161- 63. Because nei t her par t y br i ef ed

t he pot ent i al appl i cat i on of Al l eyne t o t hi s case, on r emand t he

di st r i ct cour t i s best posi t i oned t o consi der whet her Al l eyne' s

hol di ng i s r el evant t o Sepúl veda' s sent enci ng under 21 U. S. C.

§ 841( a) ( 1) and i t s at t endant penal t y pr ovi si on, i d. § 841( b) ( 1) .

34

United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez, 1st Cir. (2014)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Sepulveda-Hernandez, 1st Cir. (2014)