united states v. pabellon-rodriguez, 1st cir. (2013)

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

1/29

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

Nos. 11- 2479, 11- 2492

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

J ESS PABELLN RODR GUEZ; J I MMY CARRASQUI LLO- RODR GUEZ,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s.

APPEALS FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF PUERTO RI CO

[ Hon. J ay A. Gar c a- Gr egor y, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

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

J os Lui s Novas Debi en f or appel l ant Pabel l n Rodr guez.Mi chael C. Bour beau, wi t h whomBour beau & Boni l l a, LLP, was on

br i ef , f or appel l ant Car r asqui l l o- Rodr guez.J ust i n Rei d Mar t i n, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Rosa Emi l i a Rodr guez- Vel z, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Nel sonPr ez- Sosa, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, Chi ef , Appel l at e

Di vi si on, and J ul i a M. Meconi at es, Assi st ant Uni t ed St at esAt t or ney, wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

August 16, 2013


2/29

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Appel l ant s J i mmy Car r asqui l l o-

Rodr guez ( "Car r asqui l l o" ) and J ess Pabel l n Rodr guez

( "Pabel l n" ) wer e convi ct ed on dr ug and gun char ges t hat ar ose f r om

a r ever se st i ng oper at i on or chest r at ed by f eder al Dr ug Enf or cement

Admi ni st r at i on ( "DEA") agent s seeki ng t o st em t he f l ow of i l l egal

nar cot i cs f r om t he Domi ni can Republ i c t o Puer t o Ri co. Bot h

def endant s chal l enge thei r convi ct i ons, pr i mar i l y on suf f i ci ency

gr ounds. They al so cl ai m t hat an er r or i n t he ver di ct f or m

r equi r es a new t r i al . Car r asqui l l o al so chal l enges hi s sent ence.

The gover nment concedes t hat Car r asqui l l o' s convi ct i on on

count f our ( possessi on of a f i r ear m wi t h an obl i t er at ed ser i al

number ) must be vacat ed f or i nsuf f i ci ent evi dence. Wi t h t hat

except i on, we af f i r mt he convi ct i ons and Car r asqui l l o' s sent ence.

The evi dence was suf f i ci ent t o suppor t t he convi ct i ons. The er r or

i n t he ver di ct f or m, t hough obvi ous, does not meet t he st r i ngent

r equi r ement s of pl ai n er r or .

I.

The f act s, as suppor t ed by t he r ecor d, ar e as f ol l ows.

I n December 2008, t he DEA cr eat ed a f i ct i onal dr ug t r af f i cki ng

or gani zat i on i n or der t o t ar get gr oups engaged i n i nt er nat i onal

dr ug t r af f i cki ng oper at i ons. The gr oup consi st ed of t hr ee

i ndi vi dual s: an i nf or mant f r om Col ombi a, an i nf or mant f r om t he

Domi ni can Republ i c known as "Ci ba t o, " and DEA Task Force Of f i cer

J ess Mar r er o. Mar r er o and Ci ba t o pl ayed t he par t s of under l i ngs

-2-


3/29

f or t he Col ombi an i nf or mant , por t r ayed as t he boss of t he

organi zat i on. The gr oup began gi vi ng Marr ero' s phone number t o

i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n t he i l l egal dr ug t r ade, adver t i si ng hi mas

a dr ug di st r i but or who recei ved shi pment s f r om t he Domi ni can

Republ i c.

The group' s mar ket i ng qui ckl y pai d of f . On December 11,

2008, Mar r ero and Ci ba t o met wi t h Ramn Gonzl ez Duar t e

( "Gonzl ez" ) , a/ k/ a "Gi gant e, " at a r est aur ant i n Sant o Domi ngo.

Gonzl ez i ndi cated t hat he want ed t o pur chase ni nety ki l ogr ams of

pur e cocai ne f r om t he f i ct i onal or gani zat i on, and t hat he want ed

Mar r er o t o t r anspor t t o Puer t o Ri co an addi t i onal si xt y ki l ogr ams

of cocai ne t hat he woul d be pur chasi ng f r om anot her sour ce.

Gonzl ez sai d t hat he worked f or a man named Cagi t as, and that

t hey had the capaci t y t o di st r i but e over 500 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne

per week, as Cagi t as cont r ol l ed t he dr ug t r af f i c i n Caguas, Puer t o

Ri co and t he sur r oundi ng t owns, and al so shi pped subst ant i al

amount s t o t he cont i nent al Uni t ed St at es, par t i cul ar l y New Yor k.

Mar r er o was t o del i ver t he ni net y ki l ogr ams t o Gonzl ez' s

cohor t i n Puer t o Ri co at a cost of $15, 000 per ki l o, pl us a $2, 000

t r anspor t at i on f ee. He al so agr eed t o t r anspor t Gonzl ez' s

i ndependent l y pur chased si xt y ki l ogr ams, chargi ng t he same

t r anspor t at i on f ee of $2, 000 per ki l o. Mar r er o t ol d Gonzl ez t hat

he needed t o know who woul d be pi cki ng up t he shi pment i n Puer t o

Ri co and payi ng hi m f or t he shi pment . Gonzl ez st at ed: "I wi l l

-3-


4/29

cal l t he per son who i s goi ng t o take car e of you when you arr i ve i n

Puer t o Ri co. He' s my son, so I t r ust hi m. " He t hen pi cked up t he

phone, di al ed a number , and pl aced t he phone on speakerphone. The

cal l was answer ed by a man i dent i f yi ng hi msel f as " Hi j o de

Gi gant e, " or "Son of Gi gant e, " who was l at er i dent i f i ed as

Car r asqui l l o. ( Car r asqui l l o i s Gonzl ez' s st epson. ) At some poi nt

dur i ng t he cal l , Car r i squi l l o handed t he phone t o Cagi t as, who

st at ed t hat Car r asqui l l o woul d be t he i ndi vi dual i n char ge of

r ecei vi ng t he cocai ne and maki ng t he payment t o Mar r ero.

Despi t e t hei r t ent at i ve agr eement , Mar r er o never r ecei ved

t he si xty ki l ogr ams t hat Gonzl ez had asked hi m t o t r anspor t t o

Puer t o Ri co. On December 15, Mar r er o cal l ed Car r asqui l l o t o i nf or m

hi m t hat he had r et ur ned f r om t he Domi ni can Republ i c. Usi ng coded

l anguage, Car r asqui l l o asked Marr er o i f he had r ecei ved t he dr ug

car go and was r eady t o exchange t he drugs f or money. The next day,

Mar r er o cal l ed Cagi t as, who t ol d hi m t hat he woul d be sendi ng

Car r asqui l l o t o exchange cash f or t he dr ugs. Cagi t as put

Car r asqui l l o on t he phone, who t ol d Mar r ero t o meet hi m at t he

ki osks i n Luqui l l o l at er t hat day.

When Mar r er o ar r i ved at t he ki osk, he met Car r asqui l l o

and Car r asqui l l o' s dr i ver , J i el Snchez. Because Mar r er o had t aken

l onger t han Car r asqui l l o and hi s compat r i ot s had expect ed, t he

uni dent i f i ed peopl e t o whomCar r asqui l l o' s or gani zat i on was t o sel l

t he dr ugs were no l onger wi l l i ng t o f r ont t he money, and woul d pay

-4-


5/29

onl y upon seei ng t he dr ugs. Car r asqui l l o asked f or a cr edi t ,

meani ng t hat Marr ero woul d hand over t he shi pment f or nothi ng, wi t h

Car r asqui l l o payi ng hi mback l at er wi t h t he pr oceeds of hi s sal e t o

ot her par t i es. Car r asqui l l o' s or gani zat i on negot i at ed wi t h Ci ba t o

( t he i nf ormant i n t he Domi ni can Republ i c) , whereby t he dr ugs woul d

be ext ended t o t he organi zat i on on a cr edi t . The "guarant ee" was

Gonzl ez hi msel f : he was t o st ay at Ci ba t o' s house i n t he

Domi ni can Republ i c unt i l t he payment f or t he ni net y ki l os was

del i ver ed.

Mar r er o, however , woul d not accept a cr edi t f or t he

t r anspor t at i on cost s associ at ed wi t h t he dr ugs. As Mar r er o had

t ol d t hemt hat t he dr ugs cost $2, 000 per ki l o t o shi p, Car r asqui l l o

woul d have t o come up wi t h $180, 000 bef ore he r ecei ved t he ni net y

ki l os. Because of Car r asqui l l o' s cash f l ow pr obl ems, t he par t i es

agr eed t hat Mar r er o woul d gi ve Car r asqui l l o the dr ugs i n a ser i es

of smal l er t r ansact i ons. He woul d hand of f t he f i r st t hi r t y ki l os

t o Car r asqui l l o f or t he t r anspor t at i on cost of $60, 000.

Car r asqui l l o woul d t hen sel l t he dr ugs, r et ur ni ng a f ew hour s l at er

t o gi ve Mar r er o anot her $60, 000 f or a second t hi r t y ki l o bal e.

Onl y si xty ki l os wer e t o be t r ansf er r ed pur suant t o t hi s

ar r angement . The par t i es agr eed t hat t hi s t r ansact i on woul d t ake

pl ace t he next day, December 17, at a ki osk i n Luqui l l o.

Mar r er o ar r i ved at t he ki osk and sat down at a t abl e.

Shor t l y ther eaf t er , J i el Snchez ar r i ved wi t h an i ndi vi dual unknown

-5-


6/29

t o Mar r er o, l at er i dent i f i ed as Pabel l n. Pabel l n i s

Car r asqui l l o' s br ot her and Gonzl ez' s st epson. Wi t hout gr eet i ng

Marr ero, Snchez and Pabel l n l ooked around t he ki osk, went t o the

count er , ordered a beer , went t o t he door of t he bathr oom, and t hen

l ef t qui ckl y. Upon exi t i ng, t he pai r sur vei l l ed t he par ki ng l ot i n

t he back and si de of t he est abl i shment . Appar ent l y sat i sf i ed t hat

t he coast was cl ear , one of t hem pl aced a cal l . Car r asqui l l o

ar r i ved about ei ght mi nut es l at er .

Car r asqui l l o and Mar r er o had a conver sat i on, dur i ng whi ch

Carr asqui l l o sai d t hat t he money was on i t s way and r epeat edl y

demanded t hat Mar r er o show hi m t he dr ugs. Mar r ero t ol d hi m t hat

unt i l he saw t he money, Car r asqui l l o woul d not see t he dr ugs.

Af t er maki ng a f ew phone cal l s, Car r asqui l l o t ol d Mar r er o t hat t he

money was at anot her ki osk, and asked Mar r ero t o accompany hi m

t her e. Because t her e was no sur vei l l ance at t he second ki osk,

Mar r er o r ef used, st at i ng t hat t he dr ugs wer e cl ose by and he di d

not want t o be separ at ed f r om t hem. Wi t h bot h par t i es r ef usi ng t o

budge, Mar r ero t ermi nated t he meet i ng.

The next day, December 18, wi t h t he deal st i l l

uncompl et ed, Marr ero cal l ed Gonzl ez t o compl ai n. Marr ero obj ected

t o bei ng sur vei l l ed by Snchez and Pabel l n, and gener al l y obj ect ed

t o the pr esence of anyone but Car r asqui l l o at t he meet i ngs.

Gonzl ez expl ai ned t hat t he gr oup was ner vous because t hey had seen

a car par ked at t he ki osk wi t h peopl e i nsi de. Mar r er o and Gonzl ez

-6-


7/29

bot h expr essed suspi ci on as t o t he ot her ' s cr edent i al s i n t he dr ug

t r ade, wi t h Gonzl ez not i ng t hat no one i n the Domi ni can Republ i c

appear ed t o have hear d of Mar r ero.

Later t hat same day, Marr ero spoke t o Gonzl ez' s boss,

Cagi t as. Marr ero and Cagi t as agr eed t hat Carr asqui l l o woul d meet

Mar r er o i n t he par ki ng l ot of t he Met r opol r est aur ant i n Faj ar do

l at er t hat day. Mar r er o i nsi st ed t hat Car r asqui l l o come al one.

Bef or e Mar r er o ar r i ved at t he r est aur ant , a DEA t ask f or ce agent

obser ved a bl ue Toyot a pul l i nt o t he par ki ng l ot , f ol l owed by a

bl ack Honda. The agent r ecogni zed t he Honda: i t was t he same car

t hat Snchez and Pabel l n had dr i ven t o t he ki osk t he day bef ore.

Marr ero ar r i ved and made hi s way t o t he Toyot a, whi ch Carr asqui l l o

had dr i ven t o t he meet i ng. Mar r er o asked Car r asqui l l o wher e t he

money was, and Carr asqui l l o removed a pl ast i c bag cont ai ni ng

$59, 000 f r omunder neat h t he dr i ver ' s seat . Af t er br i ef l y exami ni ng

t he cont ent s, Mar r er o cal l ed hi s sur vei l l ance t o gi ve t he si gnal

f or t he ar r est .

Af t er r ecei vi ng Mar r er o' s si gnal , DEA Task For ce Agent

Edwi n Col n- Garc a and t wo ot her of f i cers moved i n and arr est ed

Car r asqui l l o. Meanwhi l e, Agent J i mmy Al ver i o- Her nndez parked hi s

vehi cl e i n f r ont of t he bl ack Honda and moved around t o t he Honda' s

f r ont passenger si de door , where he obser ved what appear ed t o be a

weapon under a bl ue rag on t he f l oor of t he f r ont passenger seat .

Af t er al er t i ng hi s f el l ow of f i cer s about t he gun, t he agent or der ed

-7-


8/29

t he passenger of t he Honda, l at er i dent i f i ed as Pabel l n, out of

t he car and pl aced hi m under ar r est . Agent s al so ar r est ed t he

dr i ver of t he Honda, J i el Snchez. The weapon on t he f l oor of t he

f r ont passenger seat was determi ned t o be a . 45 cal i ber Ruger

pi st ol wi t h an obl i t er at ed ser i al number .

On December 23, 2009, Carr asqui l l o, Pabel l n, and

Gonzl ez wer e i ndi ct ed f or conspi r acy t o possess wi t h i nt ent t o

di st r i but e f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne ( count one) and

conspi r acy t o i mpor t i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es f r om t he Domi ni can

Republ i c f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne ( count t wo) .

Car r asqui l l o and Pabel l n wer e al so bot h char ged wi t h possessi on of

a f i r ear mi n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me, speci f i cal l y

t he al l eged conspi r acy ( count t hr ee) , and possessi on of a f i r ear m

wi t h an obl i t er at ed ser i al number ( count f our ) . Pabel l n al one was

char ged wi t h bei ng a f el on i n possessi on of a f i r ear m( count f i ve) .

Def endant s' j ur y t r i al began on Febr uar y 7, 2011. On

Febr uar y 11, t he j ur y f ound def endant s gui l t y on al l count s. Af t er

t he deni al of mot i ons f or j udgment s of acqui t t al pur suant t o

Federal Rul e of Cr i mi nal Procedur e 29, def endant s were sent enced.

Gonzl ez r ecei ved a sent ence of 120 mont hs. Carr asqui l l o was

sent enced t o 144 mont hs on count s one and t wo, and 60 mont hs on

count f our , t o be served concur r ent l y wi t h one anot her . The cour t

al so i mposed a mandat ory 60- mont h consecut i ve sent ence on count

t hr ee, r esul t i ng i n a t ot al sent ence f or Car r asqui l l o of 204

-8-


9/29

mont hs. Pabel l n r ecei ved a 135- mont h sent ence on counts one and

t wo, a 60- mont h sent ence f or count f our , and a 120- mont h sent ence

f or count f i ve, al l t o be ser ved concur r ent l y wi t h each ot her .

Li ke Car r asqui l l o, Pabel l n r ecei ved a mandat or y 60- mont h

consecut i ve sent ence f or count t hr ee, r esul t i ng i n a t ot al sent ence

of 195 mont hs. Thi s t i mel y appeal f ol l owed. 1

II.

Bot h def endant s chal l enge t he suf f i ci ency of t he evi dence

under l yi ng cer t ai n of t hei r convi ct i ons. Al t hough he was convi ct ed

on count s one t hr ough f our , Car r asqui l l o r ai ses a suf f i ci ency

chal l enge onl y as t o count s t hr ee and f our ( t he f i r ear m- r el at ed

count s) . Pabel l n, on t he ot her hand, r ai ses no suf f i ci ency

chal l enge t o the f i r ear m- r el ated count s on whi ch he was convi ct ed

( count s t hr ee t hr ough f i ve) , f ocusi ng i nst ead on t he t wo dr ug

conspi r acy count s ( count s one and t wo) .

We r evi ew pr eserved chal l enges t o the suf f i ci ency of

evi dence de novo. Uni t ed St at es v. I henacho, 716 F. 3d 266, 279

( 1st Ci r . 2013) . I n anal yzi ng such cl ai ms, we consi der " ' whet her

any rat i onal f act f i nder coul d have f ound t hat t he evi dence

pr esent ed at t r i al , t oget her wi t h al l r easonabl e i nf er ences, vi ewed

i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t he gover nment , est abl i shed each

el ement of t he par t i cul ar of f ense beyond a r easonabl e doubt . ' "

1 Gonzl ez di d not appeal hi s convi ct i ons or sent ence.

-9-


10/29

Uni t ed St at es v. Wi l l son, 708 F. 3d 47, 52 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Poul i n, 631 F. 3d 17, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ) .

A. Carrasquillo

As not ed, Car r asqui l l o chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence under l yi ng hi s convi ct i ons f or possessi ng a f i r ear m i n

f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng of f ense i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

924( c) ( 1) ( A) ( count t hr ee) and possessi ng a f i r ear m wi t h an

obl i t er at ed ser i al number i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 922( k) ( count

f our ) . Because t he government concedes t hat t he evi dence was not

suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t hat Car r asqui l l o knew Pabel l n woul d

possess a f i r ear m car r yi ng an obl i t er at ed ser i al number , 2 we need

onl y consi der Car r asqui l l o' s chal l enge t o hi s count t hr ee

convi ct i on.

For a convi ct i on under 924( c) ( 1) ( A) , " t he gover nment

must pr ove t hat t he def endant ( 1) commi t t ed a dr ug t r af f i cki ng

cr i me; ( 2) knowi ngl y possessed a f i r ear m; and ( 3) possessed t he

f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me. " Uni t ed

St at es v. Vzquez- Cast r o, 640 F. 3d 19, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) . We have

not ed an i mport ant caveat t o t he second and t hi r d pr ongs of t hi s

anal ysi s: " [ u] nder Pi nker t on v. Uni t ed St at es, 328 U. S. 640 ( 1946) ,

2 Al t hough we vacat e Car r asqui l l o' s convi ct i on and sent ence oncount f our , we need not r emand f or r esent enci ng. The count f oursent ence runs concur r ent l y wi t h t he 144- mont h sent ence f or count sone and t wo, whi ch we af f i r m. Nei t her Car r asqui l l o nor t hegover nment ar gues t hat a r esent enci ng i s necessar y i n l i ght of t hegovernment ' s concessi on t hat count f our must be vacated.

-10-


11/29

t he def endant does not need t o have car r i ed t he gun hi msel f t o be

l i abl e under 924( c) . " Uni t ed St at es v. Fl echa- Mal donado, 373

F. 3d 170, 179 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) . Rat her , "[ s] o l ong as ther e i s

suf f i ci ent evi dence t hat a co- conspi r at or car r i ed or used a f i r ear m

i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy and t hat t hi s was r easonabl y

f or eseeabl e t o t he def endant , t he def endant can be hel d l i abl e as

i f he hi msel f car r i ed or used t he f i r ear m. " 3 I d .

Car r asqui l l o concedes t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed at

t r i al "cl ear l y est abl i shed" a dr ug conspi r acy bet ween hi msel f and

Gonzl ez t o (1) possess cocai ne wi t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e, and ( 2)

i mpor t cocai ne i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es f r omt he Domi ni can Republ i c,

t her eby sat i sf yi ng t he f i r st pr ong of t he 924( c) ( 1) ( A) anal ysi s.

He mai nt ai ns, however , t hat t he government f ai l ed t o pr oduce any

3 Car r asqui l l o al so ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed i ni nst r uct i ng on Pi nker t on l i abi l i t y as t o count s t hr ee and f our .

Because he f ai l ed t o obj ect t o t hi s al l eged er r or at t r i al , ourr evi ew i s f or pl ai n er r or . Thi s st andar d " i mposes a heavy bur denon the appel l ant , who must demonst r at e: ( 1) t hat an er r or occur r ed( 2) whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous and whi ch not onl y ( 3) af f ect ed t hedef endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s, but al so ( 4) ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t hef ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c reput at i on of t he j udi ci alpr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St ates v. Ramos- Mej a, No. 12- 1738, 2013 WL3287077, at *1 (1st Ci r . J ul y 1, 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ksomi t t ed) . Because we f i nd t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t oenabl e a j ur y t o concl ude, beyond a r easonabl e doubt , t hatCarr asqui l l o and Pabel l n were members of a dr ug conspi r acy, seei nf r a Par t I I ( B) , t her e was no "cl ear or obvi ous" er r or i n

i nst r ucti ng t he j ur y on t he Pi nker t on t heor y of l i abi l i t y wi t hr espect t o count s t hr ee and f our , see Uni t ed St at es v. Vzquez-Cast r o, 640 F. 3d 19, 25 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( f i ndi ng t hat Pi nker t oncharge was pr oper on subst ant i ve weapons count because governmentpr esent ed suf f i ci ent evi dence t hat def endant and hi s co- def endant swere member s of cocai ne conspi r acy ( t hat weapon was al l eged t o havebeen used i n f ur t her ance of ) ) .

-11-


12/29

evi dence t hat t he weapon r ecovered was possessed by a member of t he

conspi r acy dur i ng t he conspi r acy' s cour se. Addi t i onal l y, he ar gues

t hat t her e i s no evi dence t hat Car r asqui l l o knew hi s co- conspi r at or

was car r yi ng a f i r ear m, or t hat i t was r easonabl y f or eseeabl e t hat

hi s co- conspi r at or s wer e l i kel y t o be car r yi ng f i r ear ms dur i ng t he

cour se of t he conspi r acy and i n f ur t her ance t her eof .

Fi r st , t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al

t o al l ow a r at i onal t r i er of f act t o concl ude t hat Pabel l n

possessed t he pi st ol dur i ng and i n f ur t her ance of t he conspi r acy.

Pabel l n and Snchez escor t ed Car r asqui l l o' s car i nt o t he par ki ng

l ot of t he Met r opol r est aur ant , wher e Car r asqui l l o was t o exchange

$59, 000 f or 30 ki l ogr ams of cocai ne. The l oaded . 45 cal i ber Ruger

was di r ect l y bel ow Pabel l n' s seat . Gi ven Snchez and Pabel l n' s

pr i or count er sur vei l l ance act i vi t i es at t he December 17 ki osk

meet i ng bet ween Car r asqui l l o and Mar r er o, a rat i onal f act f i nder

coul d concl ude that Snchez and Pabel l n at t ended t he Met r opol

r est aur ant meet i ng t o pr ovi de pr ot ect i on f or Car r asqui l l o ( and t he

$59, 000) i n f ur t her ance of t he dr ug conspi r acy, and t hat t he

pr esence of t he gun was di r ect l y r el at ed t o t he pai r ' s secur i t y

r ol e. See Uni t ed St at es v. Mar i n, 523 F. 3d 24, 27 ( 1st Ci r . 2008)

( not i ng t hat "possessi on of a f i r ear m t o pr ot ect dr ugs or sal es

pr oceeds" i s suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh t he nexus bet ween t he f i r ear m

and t he dr ug cr i me) .

-12-


13/29

Carr asqui l l o emphasi zes t hat Snchez and Pabel l n were

par ked sever al car s away f r om t he pr ospect i ve si t e of t he

t r ansact i on, and suggest s t hat t he gun i n t hei r car was t her ef or e

not "possessed . . . i n f ur t her ance of t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng cri me. "

However , "a gun need not be present at t he moment t hat drugs are

ver i f i ed, or at t he moment t hat money or dr ugs change hands, i n

or der t o be possessed i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ng cr i me. "

Uni t ed St at es v. Al ver i o- Mel ndez, 640 F. 3d 412, 420 ( 1st Ci r .

2011) . For t he pur poses of est abl i shi ng a nexus between t he

handgun and t he conspi r acy, i t i s suf f i ci ent t hat t he j ur y coul d

r easonabl y concl ude that Car r asqui l l o had an ar med escort i n t he

same par ki ng l ot i n whi ch t he dr ug t r ansact i on was t o take pl ace.

Second, t her e was suf f i ci ent evi dence t o suppor t t he

f i ndi ng t hat i t was r easonabl y f or eseeabl e t o Car r asqui l l o t hat one

of hi s co- conspi r at or s i n t he escor t vehi cl e woul d possess a

f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of t hei r dr ug conspi r acy. I n t he f i r st

t r ansact i on al one Car r asqui l l o i nt ended t o pi ck up over $400, 000

wor t h of cocai ne. He was t hen goi ng t o sel l at l east $60, 000 of

t he cocai ne t hat same day, usi ng those pr oceeds t o acqui r e another

t hi r t y- ki l o bal e. "Because f i r ear ms ar e consi der ed ' common t ool s

of t he dr ug t r ade, ' a co- def endant ' s possessi on of a danger ous

weapon ' i s f or eseeabl e to a def endant wi t h r eason t o bel i eve t hat

t hei r col l abor at i ve cr i mi nal vent ur e i ncl udes an exchange of

cont r ol l ed subst ances f or a l ar ge amount of cash. ' " Uni t ed St at es

-13-


14/29

v. Thongsophaporn, 503 F. 3d 51, 58 ( 1st Ci r . 2007) ( quot i ng Uni t ed

St at es v. Bi anco, 922 F. 2d 910, 912 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ) ; see al so

Uni t ed St at es v. Col l azo- Apont e, 216 F. 3d 163, 196 ( 1st Ci r . 2000)

( not i ng t hat "t he i l l egal dr ug i ndustr y i s, t o put i t mi l dl y, a

danger ous, vi ol ent busi ness, " and t hat "[ a] s a cor ol l ar y, t he use

of f i r ear ms i s f or eseeabl e i n t r af f i cki ng of f enses i nvol vi ng

subst ant i al quant i t i es of dr ugs" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) , vacated on other gr ounds, 532 U. S. 1036 ( 2001) . The

quant i t y of bot h t he cash and t he dr ugs t hat Car r asqui l l o and hi s

co- conspi r at or s hoped t o exchange dur i ng t he cour se of t hei r

conspi r acy was subst ant i al by any measure.

Under t hese ci r cumst ances, a r at i onal j ur y coul d have

concl uded t hat i t was r easonabl y f or eseeabl e t o Car r asqui l l o t hat

one of hi s co- conspi r at or s woul d car r y a f i r ear m t o the Met r opol

r est aur ant meet i ng. See Vzquez- Cast r o, 640 F. 3d at 27. The

di st r i ct cour t t her ef or e pr oper l y deni ed Car r asqui l l o' s mot i on f or

a j udgment of acqui t t al on count t hr ee.

B. Pabelln

As not ed, Pabel l n chal l enges t he suf f i ci ency of t he

evi dence under l yi ng hi s convi ct i ons f or conspi r acy t o possess wi t h

i nt ent t o di st r i but e a cont r ol l ed subst ance ( count one) and

conspi r acy t o i mpor t a cont r ol l ed subst ance ( count t wo) .

To prove t he exi st ence of a conspi r acy, " t he government

must pr ove beyond a reasonabl e doubt : ( 1) t hat an agr eement exi st ed

-14-


15/29

t o commi t t he par t i cul ar cr i me; ( 2) t hat t he def endant knew of t he

agr eement ; and ( 3) t hat he vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat ed i n i t . " Uni t ed

St at es v. Cr uz- Rodr i guez, 541 F. 3d 19, 26 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . "Such

an agr eement may be expr ess or t aci t , t hat i s, r epr esent ed by words

or act i ons, and may be pr oved by di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence. " Uni t ed St at es v. Ri ver a Cal der n, 578 F. 3d 78, 88 ( 1st

Ci r . 2009) .

Pabel l n mai nt ai ns t hat t he evi dence pr esent ed at t r i al

"gi ves equal or near l y equal suppor t t o a t heor y of gui l t and a

t heor y of i nnocence. " He st at es t hat he i s not ment i oned i n any of

t he r ecor ded cal l s t hat wer e submi t t ed i nt o evi dence, and t hat t he

onl y act ual evi dence l i nki ng hi m t o t he conspi r acy i s hi s pr esence

i n t wo pl aces - - t he ki osk wher e the or i gi nal dr ug deal was

supposed t o t ake pl ace, and the par ki ng l ot of t he Met r opol

r est aur ant t he next day, wher e Car r asqui l l o and Mar r ero were to

make t hei r second at t empt at exchangi ng dr ugs f or money.

Mar r er o' s t est i mony suppor t ed t he concl usi on t hat

Pabel l n was conduct i ng count er sur vei l l ance and pr ovi di ng

pr otect i on t o Carr asqui l l o at t he December 17 meet i ng between

Car r asqui l l o and Mar r er o. The same concl usi on, based on Mar r er o' s

t est i mony and t hat of t he ot her agent s pr esent at t he bust , coul d

have been dr awn r egardi ng Pabel l n' s presence at t he Met r opol

r est aur ant . Al t hough t here was no evi dence t hat Pabel l n t ook par t

i n t he negot i at i ons bet ween Mar r er o and Car r asqui l l o/ Gonzl ez

-15-


16/29

r egar di ng t he pur chase pr i ce of t he dr ugs or t he t r ansf er of t he

ki l os, "a dr ug conspi r acy may i nvol ve anci l l ar y f unct i ons ( e. g. ,

account i ng, communi cat i ons, st r ong- arm enf orcement ) , and one who

j oi ned wi t h dr ug deal er s t o per f or mone of t hose f unct i ons coul d be

deemed a dr ug conspi r at or . " Uni t ed St ates v. Gar c a- Tor r es, 280

F. 3d 1, 4 ( 1st Ci r . 2002) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. Sot o- Ben quez,

356 F. 3d 1, 18 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "Advanci ng t he ai m of t he

conspi r acy can i nvol ve per f or mi ng anci l l ar y f unct i ons such as

pr ocessi ng and cooki ng dr ugs, pr ocur i ng weapons, col l ect i ng moni es,

enf or ci ng di sci pl i ne, chast i si ng r i val s, account i ng, and t he l i ke,

as l ong as such act i ons ar e per f or med wi t h t he ai m of f ur t her i ng

t he conspi r acy. ") . I t t her ef or e f ol l ows t hat al t hough t he evi dence

may suggest t hat Pabel l n was merel y t he "muscl e" and not t he

"br ai ns" of t he oper at i on, t hi s f act does not make hi m a mer e

"per i pher al " char act er unwor t hy of t he desi gnat i on of conspi r at or .

The di st r i ct cour t t heref or e proper l y deni ed Pabel l n' s mot i on f or

j udgment of acqui t t al on count one.

There i s l ess evi dence suppor t i ng Pabel l n' s i mpor t at i on

conspi r acy convi ct i on, whi ch r equi r es t hat he knew t he dr ugs wer e

i mpor t ed. See Uni t ed St at es v. Ger oni mo, 330 F. 3d 67, 72 ( 1st Ci r .

2003) ( "[ T] o convi ct a pr i nci pal act or of i mpor t i ng a cont r ol l ed

subst ance, t he pr osecut i on must pr ove that t he accused knew t he

dr ugs wer e i mpor t ed. ") . St i l l , t her e i s enough ci r cumst ant i al

evi dence to per mi t a reasonabl e j ur y t o concl ude t hat Pabel l n knew

-16-


17/29

t hat t he dr ugs sought t o be pur chased by t he conspi r acy came f r om

t he Domi ni can Republ i c. Fi r st , t her e was t he r el at i onshi p bet ween

t he t hr ee def endant s: Pabel l n and Car r asqui l l o ar e br ot her s, and

Gonzl ez i s t hei r st epf at her . Ther e was subst ant i al evi dence t hat

both Gonzl ez and Carr asqui l l o knew t hat t he dr ugs were i mport ed.

I t woul d not be unr easonabl e f or t he j ur y to i nf er t hat Pabel l n' s

br ot her and st epf at her shar ed wi t h hi m t he det ai l s of t he pl an.

See, e. g. , Uni t ed St at es v. Bol l i nger , 796 F. 2d 1394, 1405 ( 11t h

Ci r . 1986) ( not i ng t hat def endant ' s extensi ve deal i ngs wi t h sever al

co- conspi r ators who knew t hat t he cont r aband was i mport ed i s f actor

support i ng i nf erence t hat def endant al so knew dr ugs were i mport ed) .

Second, and r el at edl y, Pabel l n' s own st epf at her ( Gonzl ez) was t o

serve as human col l at er al f or t he pur chase pr i ce of t he dr ugs;

speci f i cal l y, he was t o stay at Ci ba t o' s house i n t he Domi ni can

Republ i c unt i l t he ni net y ki l os wer e pai d f or . Thi r d, Pabel l n was

a par t of t he deal t o gi ve $60, 000 i n t r anspor t at i on cost s f or

br i ngi ng dr ugs f r om t he Domi ni can Republ i c t o Puer t o Ri co i n

exchange f or cocai ne. I t woul d be r easonabl e f or a j ur y t o f i nd

t hat , as a par t i ci pant i n t he exchange, Pabel l n knew t he pur pose

and amount of t he money i nvol ved.

I n shor t , t hese pi eces of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence, t aken

t oget her , wer e suf f i ci ent t o al l ow a r easonabl e j ur y t o concl ude

t hat Pabel l n knew t hat t he dr ugs wer e i mpor t ed. The di st r i ct

-17-


18/29

cour t t heref or e pr oper l y deni ed Pabel l n' s mot i on f or j udgment of

acqui t t al on count t wo.

III.

The def endant s ar gue t hat t he ver di ct f or m was f aul t y

because i t er r oneousl y i nst r uct ed t he j ur y t hat , t o f i nd t hem not

gui l t y, i t had t o f i nd t hat t hey wer e i nnocent beyond a reasonabl e

doubt . For exampl e, t he ver di ct f or m f or Car r asqui l l o' s count

t hr ee charge r eads as f ol l ows:

3. Count Thr ee charges co- def endant J i mmyCar r asqui l l o- Rodr guez of knowi ngl y possessi nga f i r ear m i n f ur t her ance of a dr ug t r af f i cki ngcr i me. We t he j ur y, unani mousl y f i nd, beyond ar easonabl e doubt , t hat J i mmy Car r asqui l l o-Rodr guez, as t o Count Thr ee i s:

___ Not Gui l t y ___ Gui l t y

Thi s same f or mat was used on t he ver di ct f or m f or each count as t o

each def endant .

We r evi ew t he ver di ct f or m "as a whol e, i n conj unct i onwi t h t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons, i n or der t o det er mi ne whet her t he

i ssues wer e f ai r l y pr esent ed t o t he j ur y. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Ri cci o, 529 F. 3d 40, 47 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) . Because t her e wer e no

obj ect i ons bel ow t o t hi s l anguage i n t he ver di ct f or m, we r evi ew

f or pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. Gonzl ez- Vl ez, 466 F. 3d 27, 34-

35 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) . To sat i sf y t hi s st andar d, def endant s "mustshow: ( 1) t hat an er r or occur r ed ( 2) whi ch was cl ear or obvi ous and

whi ch not onl y ( 3) af f ect ed t he def endant ' s subst ant i al r i ght s, but

al so ( 4) ser i ousl y i mpai r ed t he f ai r ness, i nt egr i t y, or publ i c

-18-


19/29

r eput at i on of j udi ci al pr oceedi ngs. " Uni t ed St at es v. Br own, 669

F. 3d 10, 28 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

Thi s st andar d i s "so demandi ng t hat we have char act er i zed i t as

col d comf or t t o most def endant s pur sui ng cl ai ms of i nst r uct i onal

er r or . " I d. ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; see al so Uni t ed

St at es v. Pani agua- Ramos, 251 F. 3d 242, 246 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( " [ T] he

pl ai n er r or hur dl e, hi gh i n al l event s, nowher e l ooms l ar ger t han

i n t he cont ext of al l eged i nst r uct i onal er r or s. ") .

The l anguage i n t he ver di ct f or m const i t ut es cl ear and

obvi ous er r or , t her eby sat i sf yi ng t he f i r st t wo pr ongs of t he pl ai n

er r or anal ysi s. I t i s f undament al t hat a cri mi nal def endant ,

pr esumed i nnocent , can be f ound gui l t y onl y i f t he government

pr oves gui l t beyond a r easonabl e doubt . See I n r e Wi nshi p, 397

U. S. 358, 361- 64 ( 1970) ; Br i negar v. Uni t ed St at es, 338 U. S. 160,

174 ( 1949) . The ver di ct f or m suggest ed t o t he j ur y t hat i t coul d

f i nd def endant s not gui l t y onl y i f i t f ound t hat t hei r i nnocence

had been est abl i shed beyond a r easonabl e doubt . By suggest i ng t hat

t he def endant s had the bur den of pr ovi ng thei r i nnocence, t he

ver di ct f or mhad ser i ous const i t ut i onal i mpl i cat i ons. See Sul l i van

v. Loui si ana, 508 U. S. 275, 277 ( 1993) ( "What t he f act f i nder must

det er mi ne t o r et ur n a ver di ct of gui l t y i s pr escr i bed by t he Due

Pr ocess Cl ause. ") ; i d. at 278 ( "[ T] he j ur y ver di ct r equi r ed by t he

Si xt h Amendment i s a j ur y verdi ct of gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e

doubt . ") ; I n r e Wi nshi p, 397 U. S. at 364. The di st r i ct cour t

-19-


20/29

shoul d never have al l owed t hi s ver di ct f or mt o go t o t he j ur y. See

Uni t ed St ates v. Car di nas Gar ci a, 596 F. 3d 788, 799 ( 10t h Ci r .

2010) ( st at i ng ver di ct f or mwi t h i dent i cal er r or "shoul d have been

di f f er ent l y wor ded" ) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Bust os, 303 F. App' x 656,

663 ( 10t h Ci r . 2008) ( same) .

But even an er r or wi t h const i t ut i onal i mpl i cat i ons i s

subj ect t o t he t r adi t i onal f our - pr ong pl ai n er r or anal ysi s. See

Uni t ed St at es v. Geor ge, 676 F. 3d 249, 257 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; Uni t ed

St at es v. Cat al an- Roman, 585 F. 3d 453, 463 n. 8 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) ;

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr guez- Lozada, 558 F. 3d 29, 38 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) .

Def endant s must t heref ore sat i sf y t he heavy bur den i mposed by t he

t hi r d pr ong of showi ng t hat t he er r or "af f ect ed t hei r subst ant i al

r i ght s. " I n other words, def endant s "must show ' a r easonabl e

pr obabi l i t y t hat , but f or [ t he er r or cl ai med] , t he r esul t of t he

pr oceedi ng woul d have been di f f er ent . ' " Uni t ed St at es v. Hebshi e,

549 F. 3d 30, 44 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng

Uni t ed St at es v. Padi l l a, 415 F. 3d 211, 221 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) ( en

banc) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Al t hough t hi s showi ng

does not r equi r e t hat "a def endant pr ove by a pr eponderance of t he

evi dence t hat but f or [ t he] er r or t hi ngs woul d have been

di f f er ent , " Uni t ed St at es v. Domi nguez Beni t ez, 542 U. S. 74, 83 n. 9

( 2004) , we wi l l never t hel ess sust ai n a convi ct i on i f we f i nd t hat

" t he resul t woul d qui t e l i kel y have been t he same" had t he

-20-


21/29

er r oneous i nst r uct i on not been i ncl uded, Uni t ed St at es v. O' Br i en,

435 F. 3d 36, 40 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) .

Def endant s cannot cl ear t hi s hi gh hur dl e. Fi r st , J ur y

I nst r uct i on No. 2 gave a compr ehensi ve, t horough, and accur ate

expl anat i on of t he government ' s bur den of pr oof and def endant s'

pr esumpt i on of i nnocence. 4 Because t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons and t he

ver di ct f or m must be r ead i n conj unct i on wi t h one anot her , see

Br own, 669 F. 3d at 31, t he pr eci si on of t he r easonabl e doubt

st andar d i n t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons i s r el evant t o our anal ysi s of

t he pot ent i al pr ej udi ci al i mpact of t he l anguage i n t he ver di ct

f or m.

4 For exampl e, one par agr aph of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s ei ght -par agr aph J ur y I nst r uct i on No. 2 r eads as f ol l ows:

The presumpt i on of i nnocence unt i l provengui l t y means t hat t he bur den of pr oof i sal ways on t he government t o sat i sf y you t hat adef endant i s gui l t y of t he cr i mes wi t h whi chhe has been charged beyond a r easonabl e doubt .The l aw does not r equi r e t hat t he governmentpr ove gui l t beyond al l possi bl e doubt ; pr oofbeyond a r easonabl e doubt i s suf f i ci ent t oconvi ct . Thi s bur den never shi f t s t o adef endant . I t i s al ways t he gover nment ' sbur den t o pr ove each of t he el ement s of t hecr i mes charged beyond a r easonabl e doubt by

t he evi dence and t he reasonabl e i nf er ences t obe dr awn f r om t hat evi dence. A def endant hast he r i ght t o r el y upon t he f ai l ur e ori nabi l i t y of t he gover nment t o est abl i shbeyond a r easonabl e doubt any essent i alel ement of an of f ense char ged agai nst hi m orher .

-21-


22/29

Second, we cust omar i l y assume t hat j ur or s f ol l ow t he

i nst r uct i ons gi ven t o t hem by t he di st r i ct cour t . See Mor al es-

Val l el l anes v. Pot t er , 605 F. 3d 27, 34- 35 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( "A basi c

pr emi se of our j ur y syst em i s t hat t he j ur y f ol l ows t he cour t ' s

i nst r uct i ons, and t her ef or e we assume, as we must , t hat t he j ur y

act ed accor di ng t o i t s char ge. " ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ) . Al t hough t he ver di ct f or mcont ai ned l anguage suggest i ng

t hat i nnocence had t o be pr oven beyond a reasonabl e doubt , i t al so

i nst r ucted t hat t he j ur y coul d onl y f i nd gui l t i f i t f ound so

beyond a r easonabl e doubt . I n addi t i on t o t he l anguage i n t he

ver di ct f or m maki ng t hi s r equi r ement cl ear , t he j ur y i nst r uct i ons

as t o each speci f i c count were al so unambi guous about t he showi ng

necessar y t o suppor t a gui l t y ver di ct . I n t he i nst r uct i ons on

count s one and t wo, f or exampl e, t he paragr aph pr ecedi ng t he

el ement s of t he of f ense r eads as f ol l ows: "For you t o f i nd a

par t i cul ar def endant gui l t y of conspi r acy, you must be convi nced

t hat t he government has pr oven each of t he f ol l owi ng thi ngs beyond

a r easonabl e doubt . " The j ur y i nst r uct i ons on count s t hr ee t hr ough

f i ve cont ai n si mi l ar l anguage bef or e l i st i ng t he el ement s of t hose

cr i mes: "For you t o f i nd [ def endant ] gui l t y of t hi s cr i me, you must

be sat i sf i ed t hat t he gover nment has pr oven each of t he f ol l owi ng

t hi ngs beyond a r easonabl e doubt . " Gi ven t hese i nst r uct i ons - -

whi ch were read al oud by t he j udge bef ore del i berat i ons began, and

a copy of whi ch wer e wi t h t he j ur y dur i ng t hei r del i ber at i ons - - we

-22-


23/29

pr esume t hat when t he j ur ors checked the "gui l t y" boxes on t he

ver di ct f or m, t hey di d so under st andi ng t hat t hey coul d check t hat

box onl y i f t hey f ound t hat t he government had i n f act pr oved t hat

def endant s were gui l t y beyond a r easonabl e doubt .

Fi nal l y, def endant s put f or war d not hi ng t o suggest t hat

t hey suf f er ed pr ej udi ce f r omt he er r oneous l anguage i n t he ver di ct

f or m. I nst ead of at t empt i ng t o demonst r at e act ual pr ej udi ce,

def endant s merel y f ocus on t he egr egi ousness of t he er r or ,

concl udi ng t hat t he l anguage i mposed an " i mpermi ss i bl e bur den"

whi ch "negat ed" t hei r "ent i t l ement as a mat t er of l aw t o an

acqui t t al shoul d t he Government ' s evi dence . . . be deemed

i nsuf f i ci ent . " Thi s er r or was especi al l y i nj ur i ous, t hey mai nt ai n,

because of t he "nomi nal amount of evi dence" t he government

pr esent ed at t r i al .

Fi r st , t he evi dence was f ar f r omnomi nal ; i ndeed, i t was

subst ant i al . Second, t hi s sor t of gener al ar gument i s i nsuf f i ci ent

t o "show t hat t he er r or l i kel y ' af f ect ed t he out come of t he

di str i ct cour t pr oceedi ngs. ' " 5 Hebshi e, 549 F. 3d at 44 ( emphasi s

5 Some st ate cour t s have f ound t hat t he use of near l yi dent i cal l anguage i n ver di ct f or ms const i t ut es er r or war r ant i ng anew t r i al , despi t e t he f act t hat t he def endant s i n t hose cases,l i ke def endant s her e, f ai l ed t o chal l enge t he ver di ct f or ms at

t r i al . See Chedder si ngh v. St at e, 724 S. E. 2d 366, 371 ( Ga. 2012) ;St at e v. McNal l y, 922 A. 2d 479, 483 ( Me. 2007) ; cf . St at e v.J ohnson, 842 P. 2d 1287, 1289 ( Ar i z. 1992) ( r ever si ng where cour tgave a si mi l ar l y er r oneous or al i nst r uct i on) . Al t hough t hesecour t s appear t o appl y a st andar d of r evi ew si mi l ar t o t he f eder alpl ai n er r or st andar d, none of t hese deci si ons cont ai n a pr ej udi ceanal ysi s - - or at l east t he t ype of pr ej udi ce anal ysi s t hat we ar e

-23-


24/29

added) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St at es v. Ol ano, 507 U. S. 725, 734 ( 1993) ) ;

see J ones v. Uni t ed St ates, 527 U. S. 373, 394- 95 ( 1999) ( "Where t he

ef f ect of an al l eged er r or i s so uncer t ai n, a def endant cannot meet

hi s bur den of showi ng t hat t he er r or act ual l y af f ect ed hi s

substant i al r i ght s . " ) .

Havi ng f ai l ed t o est abl i sh pr ej udi ce, def endant s cannot

show t hat t he l anguage i n t he ver di ct f or m const i t ut ed pl ai n er r or

suf f i ci ent t o war r ant a new t r i al .

I V.

Pabel l n mai nt ai ns t hat t he di st r i ct cour t ' s i nst r ucti ons

on count t wo wer e er r oneous i n t hat t hey f ai l ed t o pr oper l y

i nst r uct t he j ur y as t o t he sci ent er el ement of t he of f ense.

Speci f i cal l y, he ar gues t hat t he i nst r ucti ons f ai l ed t o speci f y

t hat i n or der t o convi ct hi m on count t wo, t he j ur y needed t o f i nd

t hat he had knowl edge that t he dr ugs t hat were the subj ect of t he

deal had been i mpor t ed f r om out si de t he Uni t ed St at es. Because

Pabel l n f ai l ed t o obj ect t o t he j ur y i nst r ucti on, our r evi ew i s

agai n l i mi t ed t o pl ai n er r or . Uni t ed St at es v. LaPl ant e, 714 F. 3d

641, 643 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) .

obl i gat ed t o under t ake on pl ai n er r or r evi ew. These cour t s mayei t her be appl yi ng a r el axed st at e l aw ver si on of t he pl ai n er r or

st andar d, or , t hough not denomi nat ed as such, st r uct ur al er r oranal ysi s ( t hough i n McNal l y t he Supr eme J udi ci al Cour t of Mai neexpl i ci t l y st at ed t hat i t was not basi ng i t s deci si on on st r uct ur aler r or , 922 A. 2d at 483 n. 1) . Because def endant s do not al l ege t hatt he ver di ct f or m const i t ut ed st r uct ur al er r or , we do not addr esst hat argument . Al so, we are not suggest i ng t hat t hi s ar gumentwoul d be vi abl e.

-24-


25/29

Her e t her e was no er r or , much l ess pl ai n er r or . As t o

count t wo, t he i nst r uct i ons r ead i n r el evant par t :

Def endant s J i mmy Car r asqui l l o-Rodr guez, J ess Pabel l n- Rodr guez, and Ramon

Gonzl ez- Duar t e ar e accused of conspi r i ng t ocommi t a f eder al cri me - - speci f i cal l y, t hecr i me of i mpor t i ng i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es f r omt he Domi ni can Republ i c, f i ve ki l ogr ams or mor eof cocai ne. . . .

For you t o f i nd a par t i cul ar def endantgui l t y of conspi r acy, you must be convi ncedt hat t he government has proven each of t hef ol l owi ng t hi ngs beyond a r easonabl e doubt :

Fi r st , t hat t he agr eement speci f i ed i nt he i ndi ct ment . . . exi st ed bet ween at l eastt wo peopl e t o i mpor t i nt o the Uni t ed St at esf r omt he Domi ni can Republ i c, f i ve ki l ogr ams ormore of cocai ne; and

Second, t hat t he def endant wi l l f ul l yj oi ned i n t hat agreement ;

. . . .

To act "wi l l f ul l y" means t o actvol unt ar i l y and i nt el l i gent l y and wi t h t hespeci f i c i nt ent t hat t he under l yi ng cr i me becommi t t ed - - t hat i s t o say, wi t h bad pur pose,

ei t her t o di sobey or di sr egar d t he l aw - - nott o act by i gnor ance, acci dent or mi st ake. Thegovernment must prove t wo t ypes of i ntentbeyond a r easonabl e doubt bef or e a def endantcan be sai d t o have wi l l f ul l y j oi ned t heconspi r acy: an i nt ent t o agr ee and an i nt ent ,whet her r easonabl e or not , t hat t he under l yi ngcr i me be commi t t ed. . . .

( Emphasi s added. ) A f i ndi ng of gui l t y on count t wo t her ef or e

r equi r ed t hat t o "wi l l f ul l y" j oi n t he conspi r acy t o i mpor t cocai ne

f r om t he Domi ni can Republ i c t o t he Uni t ed St at es, Pabel l n had t o

i nt end t hat t he under l yi ng cri me - - "speci f i cal l y, t he cri me of

i mpor t i ng i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es f r om t he Domi ni can Republ i c, f i ve

-25-


26/29

ki l ogr ams or mor e of cocai ne" - - be commi t t ed. The i nst r uct i on

embr aces t he concept of knowl edge t hat t he dr ugs were i mpor t ed: i f

one i nt ends t o br i ng dr ugs f r om t he Domi ni can Republ i c t o the

Uni t ed St at es, one must have knowl edge t hat t he dr ugs ar e bei ng

br ought i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es acr oss nat i onal bor der s. The

di st r i ct cour t ' s i nst r uct i ons on count t wo wer e t her ef or e not

i mpr oper , much l ess pl ai nl y er r oneous. 6

V.

Car r asqui l l o chal l enges hi s sent ence, ar gui ng t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t f ai l ed t o consi der t he appl i cat i on of Uni t ed St at es

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes ( "U. S. S. G. " ) 2D1. 1, Appl i cat i on Not es 12

and 14. We consi der hi s ar gument s as t o each of t hese Not es i n

t ur n.

Not e 12 st at es i n per t i nent par t :

[ I ] n a rever se st i ng, t he agr eed- upon quant i t y

of t he cont r ol l ed subst ance woul d moreaccur at el y r ef l ect t he scal e of t he of f ensebecause t he amount act ual l y del i ver ed i scont r ol l ed by t he government , not by thedef endant . I f , however , t he def endantest abl i shes t hat t he def endant di d not i nt endt o pr ovi de or pur chase, or was not r easonabl ycapabl e of pr ovi di ng or pur chasi ng, t heagr eed- upon quant i t y of t he cont r ol l edsubst ance, t he cour t shal l excl ude f r om t heof f ense l evel determi nat i on t he amount ofcont r ol l ed subst ance that t he def endant

6 Pabel l n al so ar gues t hat t he cumul at i ve ef f ect of t heer r or s he asser t s under mi nes the j ur y' s det er mi nat i on of gui l t . Wehave i dent i f i ed onl y one er r or r el at ed t o hi s convi ct i on: t heer r oneous l anguage i n t he ver di ct f or m. Ther e i s no cumul at i veer r or ar gument avai l abl e t o hi m.

-26-


27/29

est abl i shes t hat t he def endant di d not i nt endt o pr ovi de or pur chase or was not r easonabl ycapabl e of pr ovi di ng or pur chasi ng.

U. S. S. G. 2D1. 1 cmt . n. 12 ( 2011) . Car r asqui l l o mai nt ai ns that t he

conspi r at or s' i nabi l i t y t o pay f or t he ni net y ki l ogr ams of cocai ne

up f r ont shows t hat t hey were not " r easonabl y capabl e of

pur chasi ng" such a l arge amount of dr ugs.

We r evi ew a di st r i ct cour t ' s f act ual f i ndi ngs as t o dr ug

quant i t y under t he sent enci ng gui del i nes f or cl ear err or . Uni t ed

St at es v. Cor r ea- Al i cea, 585 F. 3d 484, 489 ( 1st Ci r . 2009) . Her e

t he agr eed- upon quant i t y was ni net y ki l ogr ams. Thi s quant i t y shal l

be reduced under Appl i cat i on Note 12 onl y i f " t he def endant

est abl i shes t hat t he def endant di d not i nt end t o pr ovi de or

pur chase, or was not r easonabl y capabl e of pr ovi di ng or pur chasi ng,

t he agr eed- upon quant i t y of t he cont r ol l ed subst ance. " U. S. S. G.

2D1. 1 cmt . n. 12 ( emphasi s added) .

Car r asqui l l o never put f or war d evi dence i ndi cat i ng t hat

he and hi s co- conspi r ators were not r easonabl y capabl e of

pur chasi ng t he ni net y ki l ogr ams of cocai ne t hat t hey agr eed t o

pur chase. Al t hough Car r asqui l l o and hi s co- conspi r at or s wer e onl y

abl e t o come up wi t h an i ni t i al $59, 000 t o recei ve t he f i r st

t hi r t y- ki l o bal e, t hey wer e t o use t he pr of i t s f r om t he sal e ( t hat

same day) of t he f i r st bal e t o f und t he pur chase of t he second

bal e, whi ch t hey woul d t hen sel l t o pur chase a t hi r d bal e. The

conspi r at or s wer e so conf i dent t hat t hey coul d pay t he pur chase

-27-


28/29

pr i ce of t he dr ugs t hat t hey wer e wi l l i ng t o bet Gonzl ez' s l i f e on

i t . We t her ef or e concl ude t hat t he di st r i ct cour t di d not err i n

f ai l i ng t o r educe Car r asqui l l o' s of f ense l evel under t he

ci r cumst ances set out i n Note 12.

Not e 14 st at es:

I f , i n a r ever se st i ng ( an oper at i on i n whi cha gover nment agent sel l s or negot i ates t o sel la cont r ol l ed subst ance t o a def endant ) , t hecour t f i nds t hat t he gover nment agent set apr i ce f or t he cont r ol l ed subst ance t hat wassubst ant i al l y bel ow t he mar ket val ue of t hecont r ol l ed subst ance, t her eby l eadi ng t o t hedef endant ' s pur chase of a si gni f i cant l ygr eat er quant i t y of t he cont r ol l ed subst ancet han hi s avai l abl e r esour ces woul d haveal l owed hi m t o pur chase except f or t hear t i f i ci al l y l ow pr i ce set by t he gover nmentagent , a downwar d depar t ure may be war r ant ed.

I d. cmt . n. 14. Car r asqui l l o mai nt ai ns t hat hi s sent ence shoul d be

r educed pur suant t o Appl i cat i on Not e 14 because t he government , by

agr eei ng t o t r ansf er cont r ol of t he dr ugs t o Car r asqui l l o based

subst ant i al l y on credi t , agr eed t o sel l t he dr ugs at a pr i ce

"subst ant i al l y bel ow t he mar ket val ue. "

We f i nd t hi s ar gument unconvi nci ng. Al t hough t here may

be i nst ances i n whi ch a "cr edi t ar r angement " coul d i mpl i cat e t he

i ssues i dent i f i ed i n Appl i cat i on Not e 14, see Uni t ed St at es v.

Rui z, 446 F. 3d 762, 774- 75 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) ( "A gener ous cr edi t

ar r angement becomes i ncreasi ngl y suspect wher e t he gover nment

possesses l i mi t ed assur ances of t he def endant ' s abi l i t y t o be

t r ust ed wi t h r epayment . " ) , t he human col l at er al ar r angement her e - -

-28-


29/29

par t i cul ar l y gi ven t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he co- conspi r at or s - -

ser i ousl y under mi nes any ar gument t hat Appl i cat i on Not e 14 appl i es.

Fur t her more, Car r asqui l l o put f or war d no evi dence suggest i ng t hat

such cr edi t ar r angement s ar e uncommon i n t he dr ug t r af f i cki ng

t r ade, or t hat t he ter ms of t hi s cr edi t ar r angement wer e mor e

gener ous t han i n t he usual case. I t was t her ef or e not cl ear er r or

f or t he di str i ct cour t t o f ai l t o r educe Car r asqui l l o' s of f ense

l evel pur suant t o Appl i cat i on Not e 14.

VI .

For t he f or egoi ng r easons, we af f i r m Pabel l on' s

convi cti ons on al l count s. We af f i r m Car r asqui l l o' s convi cti ons

and t hei r sent ences as t o al l count s except count f our . We vacat e

Car r asqui l l o' s convi ct i on and sent ence f or count f our .

So or der ed.

-29-

united states v. pabellon-rodriguez, 1st cir. (2013)

Documents